Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Irish Foreign Minister.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): My right hon. Friend last met the Irish Foreign Minister at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 17th January.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say what representations were made to the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland about the recent remarks by Mr. Lynch about a demand for a British intent to withdraw from Northern Ireland? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such remarks were an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that the future of Northern Ireland is a matter not for negotiation between Dublin and London but for the express wishes of the majority of the people in Ulster?

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the Government's policy in Northern Ireland quite clear on a number of occasions, and most recently in the House on 12th January, when he underlined that the Government are looking for a partnership administration reflecting the interests of both communities in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made the same point to the Taoiseach at their meeting

last September. I refer hon. Members to the Prime Minister's answer on 17th January, when he said that the people of Northern Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is their desire to do so.

Mr. Kilfedder: When the Secretary of State met the Eire Foreign Minister, did he emphasise that the continuing failure of the Eire Government to sign the European extradition agreement gives comfort to the terrorists who have fled from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic after committing atrocities in the Province?

Mr. Judd: The Government have made clear that they regard extradition as the most effective means of dealing with fugitive terrorists. Our views are well known to the Irish Government.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister in a position to tell us what support the United Kingdom has had from Ireland on renegotiating the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Judd: It is true to say that there is a great deal of common interest between the position of the Republic of Ireland and ourselves on that issue, and we endeavour to work closely together.

Anatoly Shcharansky

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that Anatoly Shcharansky, a Russian Jew, has been imprisoned in Moscow without trial since March 1977, that he has been forbidden legal representation unless he pleads guilty to a pending charge of treason which carries the death penalty, and that he is no longer allowed visitors or to receive or send letters; and what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to draw the attention of the Soviet Government and the Belgrade Conference to the denial of human rights in this case.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I am following this case closely. The Government will continue to ensure that the Soviet authorities are in no doubt about the widespread concern felt in this country over Mr. Shcharansky and other human rights cases, and about the implications of the case for the Belgrade meeting and the whole process of detente.

Sir D. Renton: May I say that I share that concern? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Russian Government that their inhuman and uncivilised treatment of this man damages their reputation? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask that Shcharansky be immediately released, bearing in mind that the Russians have kept him in custody incommunicado for nearly a year while they make up their minds, or, rather, fail to do so?

Dr. Owen: I think that the sentiments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are shared by many in the House. On a number of occasions, and some quite recently, I have taken the opportunity privately to make clear to the Soviet authorities that there is very strong public feeling in this country. Although we have no direct status in the sense that some of these people do not have direct links with the British people and the British Government, we have our responsibilities as international citizens, which affects our relations with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Thorpe: As the Foreign Secretary's commitment to civil rights is not an issue in the House, does he agree that the fact that Mr. Shcharansky has been held incommunicado for nearly a year, without his mother being able to see him, still less his legal advisers, will make hollow any subsequent agreement at Belgrade on human rights with the Russians unless they show some definite movement in this regard?

Dr. Owen: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to dissociate the overhang effect of some of these cases from what might be said in Belgrade. Many of us have this anxiety. One might make a forthcoming statement at Belgrade hoping for changes in future years, only to see, a few weeks or months later, those hopes suddenly and cruelly dashed. That would breed cynicism among the public about the whole process of détente. That is a matter that the Soviet authorities should consider.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 300 Members, including you, Mr. Speaker, together with the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury, have now signed a Bible as a token of the concern of the House about the fate of Anatoly Shcharansky?

What protest has he made at the refusal of the Soviet Ambassador in Belgrade to receive this Bible from the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and myself and, indeed, at the cancellation of an appointment that he made with us at his convenience? Does he not think that the time has come for some very plain speaking on behalf of the House of Commons in this matter?

Dr. Owen: Naturally, I regret that an appointment that had been made was not kept. We must keep these issues in perspective. The process of détente involves more than just human rights. Of course, human rights are an extremely important element in it. I do not want to undermine or dissociate myself from the strong commitment to human rights. There are other issues to be discussed in the process of détente—the whole question of disarmament and the threat to peace of nuclear arms escalating. In forming a judgment on these issues, we have to see the process of détente as a whole.

Mr. John Davies: I fully understand the Foreign Secretary's statement about the broad area covered by détente. Has he made it clear to the Soviet Union that any final communiqué jointly agreed at Belgrade cannot reasonably fail to make some reference to the concern and agony that are felt about this matter unless something is done about Anatoly Shcharansky and his like?

Dr. Owen: I note and share the right hon. Gentleman's view. That is a factor to be borne in mind. We cannot take too rigid a line until we determine the kind of framework in which we shall discuss this matter. Many people feel that those who monitor the process at Helsinki in any of the member States that signed the Final Act should not suffer for their monitoring.

Armaments (Expenditure)

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the other member States of NATO to refrain from increasing their expenditure on armaments, in the interests of not prejudicing the outcome of the Special United Nations Session on Disarmament due to take place in May of this year.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of his declaration that Great Britain will play a positive rôle at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in May, he will seek to ensure that no steps will be taken meanwhile to prejudice the success of that conference.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in his consultations with NATO, he will seek to ensure that the organisation should refrain from pressing for increased arms expenditure by its member Governments pending the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): We and our allies intend to play a positive rôle in the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. There is no question of any moves which might prejudice the prospects for the session. Until our objective of general and complete disarmament can be achieved, we and our allies must maintain the military expenditure necessary to ensure our security.

Mr. Litterick: Does the Minister agree, however, that the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of real increases in armaments expenditure runs counter to the no doubt sincere hope by the Foreign Office that it can play a positive rôle in the coming United Nations discussions on disarmament? It seems to many hon. Members to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the British Government to exercise any moral authority at all on anyone, particularly in NATO, in this respect. Therefore, does he agree that it would render the United Nations talks nugatory from the start?

Mr. Luard: There is no contradiction in the two facts mentioned by my hon. Friend. As he knows, we undertook a drastic defence review and cut defence spending by over £8 billion or £9 billion over a nine-year period. Now that our financial situation is somewhat restored, in conjunction with our allies and in accordance with the NATO decision, we have decided to raise defence expenditure by 3 per cent. over coming years. There is no conflict between doing that and

taking a positive rôle at the conference, to which we attach great importance. We have our own ideas to present to the conference. I hope that we can play a positive part.

Mr. Allaun: First, does my hon. Friend feel that an increase in arms spending by East or West inevitably heightens tension and makes peace and arms reductions this year harder to achieve?
Secondly, if a Soviet nuclear-powered spy satellite can go astray—fortunately, without horrific effects—does he not think that, with both East and West having scores of such satellites, sooner or later one will cause a disaster and perhaps spark off the Third World War?

Mr. Luard: I agree that all increases in defence expenditure can have the effect of raising tension. But we must be concerned about the balance of armaments between East and West. Unfortunately, increases in defence expenditure on the Eastern side on a fairly substantial scale have been reported, and NATO must take account of them.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the danger of satellites coming down and causing immense damage. Therefore, it is all the more important that we act positively at the conference to ensure real progress towards disarmament.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the problems of world poverty, we need a United Nations initiative to bring about an end to the arms race in order to divert resources to help the needy in the Southern Hemisphere?

Mr, Luard: As I said in my original answer, our aim is eventual "general and complete disarmament." One of the main effects, to which the United Nations has often drawn attention, would be that enormous resources would be available for development all over the world.

Mr. Powell: What did the Under-Secretary mean by the expression "complete disarmament" in his substantive reply?

Mr. Luard: The ultimate aim, as I said, is the elimination of all armaments. This is a long-term eventual aim. I do not suggest that it is easy, but it is a matter to which the discussions at the conference will be directed.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the Minister agree that a posture of weakness on the part of the West is as likely to cause increasing tension as a posture of strength? To what extent is increased arms expenditure by this country designed to meet the increased threat to our communications posed by the disposition of hostile Soviet submarines?

Mr. Luard: Our aim is to assure for the West a position neither of superior strength nor of weakness. Our aim should be to secure a balance of armaments between East and West. We shall not be successful in the talks unless we make that clear before the negotiations take place.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Nations Charter would be at risk unless NATO defined its attitude towards the neutron weapon? Does he further agree that the United Kingdom should press for a mutual denunciation of this ghastly weapon?

Mr. Luard: I understand that no final decisions have been taken about that weapon. We are in close consultation with all the Powers involved.

Mr. Thorpe: We all hope for a major advance at the United Nations special session. Is the Minister aware that it is suggested that there is to be a major exhibition at Aldershot designed to promote the sale of British arms to all and sundry? Is it correct that that exhibition will correspond with the last week of the United Nations special session? Is that by design or by accident?

Mr. Luard: It is an exhibition of all types of Army equipment, including weapons, for an invited audience of defence procurement officials from a wide range of customer States. The last such exhibition took place in the summer of 1976. I am sure that the timing is a matter of accident.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not irrelevant hypocrisy on the part of the Minister's hon. Friends below the Gangway to complain of the Government's modest and belated decision to make a small increase in defence expenditure at a time when the armaments industry of the Soviet Union is out-producing Britain's entire inventory of tanks, aircraft and submarines every four months?

Mr. Luard: I have already said that the level of defence expenditure in other parts of Europe must be of concern to us in making our own decisions on defence expenditure. What is of concern is the relationship not of Soviet expenditure to our own but of Soviet and East European expenditure to that of the West as a whole.

Mr. Luce: Although it is hoped that real progress will be made at the United Nations and that the British team will be strongly represented, is it not clear that the lessons of history demonstrate that if genuine progress is to be made it must be on the basis of balanced arms reductions? Is it not therefore imperative that NATO members negotiate from a position of adequate strength?

Mr. Frank Allaun: That is what the Russians say.

Mr. Luard: It is our aim to secure a balance at the time when the conference takes place. At the conference we shall also wish to secure substantial reductions, which, of course, must be of a balanced nature.

Cyprus

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has on the position of British hotels in the North of Cyprus pending a settlement between the Turkish authorities and the British owners.

Mr. Judd: In commercial cases such as this, the British High Commission in Nicosia forwards claims, and makes representations, whenever requested to do so by British holders of rights in an undertaking. It will, of course, continue to do this. But these cases need to be considered individually and some companies prefer to deal direct with the Turkish Cypriots.

Mr. Townsend: Does the Minister appreciate that prior to the forthcoming ruling of the House of Lords and/or a settlement of the Cyprus problem British hotel owners, travellers and tourists are in a difficult position? Can he assure the House that the Government accept that they have a responsibility to give regular information to those most concerned and to protect British interests?

Mr. Judd: I assure the House that we shall always do our best to answer any queries from whatever quarter. Consular services are available to all three in Cyprus from whatever part of the island they come.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the possession of British hotels in Cyprus—I am referring in particular to New Famagusta—is intimately linked to a political settlement'? Does he further agree that it is not enough for hotel keepers to settle the problem themselves because without a moving back of the Greek citizens to New Famagusta there will be no political settlement?

Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend is right. This can be seen as a symptom of the underlying political problem. We are determined to do everything we can to support those who are seeking a political solution.

Mr. Emery: When he considers the aspect of British property in Cyprus, will the Minister realise that many house owners who have homes in the north of the island have had their houses pillaged and are not allowed to go to the island to see the situation for themselves? Does he agree that it is not enough to approach the authorities individually unless his Department takes action to support individual property owners?

Mr. Judd: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member and the House that a senior official visited Cyprus last month to have further discussions with the Turkish Cypriot authorities. He was told that a claims commission would be set up towards the end of the month. The chairman has already been named and members will be appointed shortly. The High Commissioner is pursuing the matter vigorously.

Rhodesia

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.

Dr. Owen: The Government, with the full support of the United States Government, are continuing to work for a Rhodesian settlement which will be acceptable to the international community

and contribute to peace and prosperity in an independent Zimbabwe.
I shall be meeting Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe, the joint leaders of the Patriotic Front, in Malta on 30th January. I shall be accompanied by Lord Carver and by Ambassador Andrew Young and the United Nations Secretary-General will be represented by General Prem Chand. The object of the talks is to discuss with the leaders of the Patriotic Front the whole range of questions arising from the Anglo-American proposals, particularly the substantive matters on which we have so far had very little discussion with them.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much longer he will use his continued bad offices to try to prevent a settlement between Mr. Smith and the moderates of Rhodesia? How much longer does he propose to prefer the company of murderers to that of moderates?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Member must accept that an internal settlement which excludes one of the leading nationalist groups cannot bring about a ceasefire during the elections or bring peace and stability to a newly independent Zimbabwe, nor would it eliminate the threat to international peace and security. It would, therefore, be most unlikely to be recognised by the Security Council. We are signatories to many Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Grocott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House in his determination to continue talks with Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo? Will he confirm that it would be ludicrous to have any kind of paper settlement that did not involve the full co-operation of the Patriotic Front, whose forces have forced Smith to the conference table?

Dr. Owen: I have been almost brutally frank with the House about the limitations on the Government's rôle in this matter. I do not delude myself that we can have absolute power. All I can say is that I believe that we must pursue a ceasefire as being the stable way of ensuring an independent Zimbabwe. We have offered, within the framework of the Anglo-American proposals, to administer Rhodesia during a transitional period. We have never administered that


territory and it would not be right to administer it unless there were a reasonable guarantee of a ceasefire and a peaceful period during which elections would be held.

Mr. Blaker: Do the Six Principles still apply? Have they been modified?

Dr. Owen: We still stand by the basic principles, but they are much more detailed in the Anglo-American proposals. I hope that we shall be able to elaborate them as I promised following the run of consultations. No one is under any illusion that to negotiate a ceasefire between two forces, neither of which has won or lost, is extremely difficult. This has eluded people in the past. It is right for the British and American Governments to try to achieve that objective.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nostalgia for the old imperialism that lingers on the Opposition Benches is of no help? Does he agree that certain so-called terrorists such as Nehru, Gandhi and Kenyatta have eventually become world statesmen? Does my right hon. Friend accept that no solution to the Rhodesian problem is possible that does not take into account the aspirations of the Patriotic Front?

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Churchill: What, Nehru a terrorist?

Dr. Owen: I think that in the past when many people opposed the granting of independence under the British Parliament many people ended up in prison. The mere fact that they were imprisoned by a British Government does not necessarily mean that they were terrorists.
We shall not achieve a settlement if we allow any side to have an absolute veto. If we are to achieve a negotiated ceasefire—which is very difficult—no side can hold to its principles to the exclusion of its readiness to compromise. The problem is that there are a number of parties to the dispute who are unwilling to show the necessary compromise.

Mr. Amery: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the last 24 hours the internal settlement talks in Salisbury have made somewhat dramatic progress? Will he

explain to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe when he meets them in Malta that if there is an internal settlement which is consonant with the Six Principles it would be extremely difficult for the British Government not to recognise the Rhodesian Government which emerged from such a settlement? Does the Secretary of State agree that he would be deluding the leaders of the Patriotic Front if he did not make that clear to them?

Dr. Owen: I agree that we should try to talk about principles. The Government and this House alone can confer legal independence on Rhodesia. We would not do so if a settlement did not accord with the basic principles in the Anglo-American proposals.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of some kind of Bantustan under the aegis of Mr. Smith would not be acceptable to the House, the OAU, the Commonwealth or the United Nations? Does he accept that the only thing that matters is free elections under the auspices of the United Nations?

Dr. Owen: It is necessary for the United Nations to have a crucial rôle in this settlement. It is necessary for it to have both a military peacekeeping réle and a supervisory and observation role to ensure fair elections. Any administration by a British resident Commissioner must be seen to be fair. We cannot ignore the whole weight of international opinion—the Security Council, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Organisation of African Unity.

Mr. John Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that for more than a year now I have sought to sustain his efforts to find a peaceful solution in Rhodesia, in spite of some very wide criticism? I am bound to tell him now, and I hope that he will accept, that I fear—and I hope that he will be able to say that it is not so—that the behaviour of Her Majesty's Government does not do honour to us in relation to the efforts currently being made in Rhodesia to find a settlement. Does he understand that, however important the external influences may be, however important the carrying of the United Nations may be, the matter of prime importance is that we here should by every means seek to bring about a


peaceful settlement in that country? If there is such a prospect from the discussions now currently in hand in Salisbury, it would be madness indeed for any Government to seek to frustrate them.

Dr. Owen: I will certainly not and nor will the Government frustrate a peaceful settlement there, from whatever source it comes. I believe that we in this House have a responsibility to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, and I have never deviated from that. Since I decided that it was not incumbent upon me to ignore the problem of Rhodesia, and that it was necessary for me to strive for a peaceful settlement, I have been attacked on many sides and by many different people. It goes on day after day. I will not seek—and here I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)—as he has not sought, to make this a party political issue in the House. I will seek the maximum degree of consensus possible, but not at the risk of departing from the principles laid down in the Anglo-United States initiative.

Concorde

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position in the negotiations he is conducting with the Malaysian Government on the question of Concorde's overflying rights of the Malacca Strait on its flight-path to Singapore.

Mr. Judd: I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Member that talks with the Malaysian Government resumed today in Kuala Lumpur.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the Deputy High Commissioner of Malaysia told me that his Government's attitude was shaped by concern for the unknown effect on fish in the Malacca Strait of Concorde flying overhead? However, most people with any knowledge of the problem believe that it is based upon the splitting of the former Malaysia-Singapore Airlines into two airlines and the determination of the Malaysian Government to prevent Singapore International Airlines from being successful. Will he say what he is prepared to do if the Malaysian Government do not reach a reasonable agreement within a reasonable time?

Mr. Judd: It is true that the Malaysian Government say that they are principally concerned on environmental and air traffic control grounds. We believe that their action is illegal, and we are making that point plain. But we are certain that in the context of the resumed negotiations a satisfactory solution will be found.

Mr. Tebbit: Does the Minister think that it would have been a wiser course to have secured agreement with the Malaysian authorities about these rights before rather than after screwing them down to an agreement on air traffic between London and Malaysia which the Malaysians felt was very unfair to their airline?

Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman's account of history was correct, he would be right in his judgment. But what happened was that contacts were started at official level with the Malaysian Government in January last year. We gave them route proposals last March and again in October. The Malaysian officials did not indicate at any time that this would cause any difficulty for their Government.

Japan (Foreign Minister)

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the Japanese Foreign Minister.

Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend hopes to see Mr. Sonoda soon, but at the moment there are no definite plans for them to meet. However, the Japanese Minister for External Economic Affairs, Mr. Ushiba, is coming to London on 26th and 27th January and will be meeting a number of Ministers.

Mr. MacFarquhar: When Ministers meet Mr. Ushiba, will they express to him the interests of Her Majesty's Government in the unfolding of Japan's avowed plans to increase development assistance? Will they urge upon him Britain's desire that extra aid from Japan, when it is announced, should go where it is most needed, namely, to the countries of South Asia—India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Mr. Luard: We welcome Japan's undertaking to double its aid within the next five years. We would welcome, too,


any further acceleration of that programme, and we would like to see it spread more widely, with some of it going to multilateral institutions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When the Minister has discussions with the Japanese Government, will he advance the opinion that Japan, with its great power, should play a large rôle in maintaining the naval security of the Eastern Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and also discuss the possibility of joint Anglo-Japanese ventures in the great nation of China?

Mr. Luard: That would be a matter for the Foreign Ministers' meeting rather than for the Minister of External Economic Affairs. The hon. Gentleman knows the constraints on Japan expanding its defence expenditure. They lie partly in public opinion and partly in its constitution. The other matter that the hon. Member mentioned is an interesting idea that no doubt could be discussed with the Japanese Government.

El Salvador

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to El Salvador during 1978.

Dr. Owen: No, Sir.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his Government's recent decision not to go ahead with the sale of armaments to El Salvador is most welcome to people in this country and overseas who are deeply concerned about the peace and freedom of that area?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the difficulty which arises over the supply of that equipment and the fact that the Government had to seek assurances that it would not be used against neighbouring Belize would never have arisen if consideration had been given at the outset to the wisdom of supplying equipment to any Government who oppressed their own people? Has the lesson now been learned, and in future will British arms not be supplied to regimes that deny fundamental human rights to their own populations?

Dr. Owen: There are a few administrative lessons to be learned.

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and El Salvador.

Dr. Owen: There is no change in our relations.

Mr. Newens: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government's decision to cancel the arms deal with El Salvador? Will he now press the United States and other Powers not to supply arms to Guatemala or any of its allies until that country recognises the territorial integrity of Belize? Will he make a statement here and now that no undue pressure will be brought to bear on the Premier of Belize to sacrifice part of his territory to meet the demands of Guatemala before a settlement can be arrived at?

Dr. Owen: There is another Question on the Order Paper to which I hope to reply. No pressure has been or will be applied. The Government have made it clear to many Governments that we deplore the supply of arms to Guatemala in a situation in which we are faced with the current territorial dispute between Belize and Guatemala.

Belize

Mr. Speaker: I undertand that Questions Nos. 23 and 26 will be answered after Question Time.

Uganda

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration he has given to stopping flights between the United Kingdom and Uganda from Stansted airport.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The question of the Stansted flights is under active consideration. The Government will soon be in a position to announce their decision.

Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a degree of urgency about our receiving an answer on this? At the time of


the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, when Uganda was occupying more attention than at present, certain promises or hints of promises were given that this Stansted run, which is totally unnecessary, would be stopped. We look forward to urgent action.

Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate my hon. Friend's points, but a number of very complex issues related to our international obligations and our domestic law are involved here. The Government are seeking advice on them and we hope to make an announcement soon.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it not true that every time we drink Nescafé or Maxwell House coffee we are helping to underpin the régime in Uganda, the coffee sales of which are being remarkably successful? In these circumstances, is there not an argument for the Government to turn their attention possibly to some sort of economic sanctions if we are ever to undermine Amin's régime?

Mr. Rowlands: I think that it would be a very serious course to embark upon full-scale trade sanctions which would conflict with our own domestic interests—Rhodesia is a very special case—but, also, it would conflict with our commitment to Lomé in EEC terms.

Mr. Luce: It is quite clear that these regular airways flights from Stansted to Uganda are helping to sustain the tyrannical Ugandan régime by the provision of luxury goods rather than helping the people of Uganda. Is it not time that the Government stopped prevaricating? Will the Minister explain what the obstacles are?

Mr. Rowlands: The obstacles are fundamental legal ones about international obligations—things like the Chicago Convention and many other provisions internationally—which make it difficult for us to terminate these flights. However, we have been investigating the possibilities and we hope to make an announcement soon. We appreciate and share the strength of feeling in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Commission Officials (Security Vetting)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs if he will raise in the next Council of Ministers' meeting the issue of the vetting of EEC Commission officials for security.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): My hon. Friend has corresponded with both my right hon. Friend and myself about this matter. It is essentially one for the Commission and I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to raise it now in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Dalyell: Are the views of certain EEC officials about vetting reconcilable with the management of Euratom?

Mr. Tomlinson: As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) himself said during a debate in the European Assembly, there is a certain irreducible dilemma between the problem of confidentiality and the need to ensure that the careers of Community officials are not prejudiced. I note what my hon. Friend says about Euratom. I re-emphasise the basic message of our recent correspondence that this important subject is more appropriate for consideration by the Commission than by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Marten: Will the Minister say whether the appointment of Mr. Spinelli as a Commissioner, who is a member of the Communist Party and who had left the Commission to fight the Italian elections as a Communist candidate, was subject to vetting?

Mr. Tomlinson: The answer is "No." I cannot tell the hon. Member one way or the other.

Foreign Ministers (Meeting)

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the main subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the other Foreign Ministers of the European Community.

Dr. Owen: A monthly written forecast of Council business will be deposited tomorow and my hon. Friend the Minister of State expects to make his oral statement on 30th January.

Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend expect to raise at the meeting of


the Council of Ministers the question of Greek entry into the Community? Will he make a comment on the likelihood of that being finally agreed and sorted out by October, as Mr. Karamanlis expressed the hope in this morning's newspapers?

Dr. Owen: I shall be talking to Mr. Karamanlis this afternoon with the Prime Minister. I will be interested to hear his views. All of us support the principle of enlargement. For political, in particular, as well as economic reasons, we want to buttress the new democracies that are currently applying, which have been through a difficult period.
I do not wish to hide from the House the fact that there are difficult economic negotiations that have to be undertaken by all people who wish to accede to the Treaty. We have some way to go in regard to those in regard to the Greek application.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that President Sadat's initiative does not appear to be achieving the success it deserves, will the Foreign Secretary discuss with his EEC colleagues the possibility of the Community playing a more active rôle in the Middle East than it has been doing in the last month or two?

Dr. Owen: It has always been discussed on every occasion when Community Foreign Ministers meet together, and the last Council meeting was no exception. It is often discussed privately. It is unwise to jump to the conclusion that the European member States, in their own different ways, are not having a quite important influence on the situation. But I do not think that it calls for public statements from the Community at present.

Mr. Gould: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the prospect of enlarging the EEC when it comes to the question of fixing a new date for direct elections? Does he agree that it would be perverse to hold direct elections a few months before the accession of the Greeks, who would no doubt wish to participate?

Dr. Owen: I am at one with my hon. Friend in believing that all relevant factors should be taken into account in considering the date for direct elections to the European Parliament.

Mr. Hurd: Following on the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), can the Foreign Secretary shed light on the way the Community will decide the date for direct elections? Will it be the European Council, or will the Council of Ministers have a go first? Will he confirm the Press report that the Prime Minister said that he will not agree to any date for European elections in advance of our own General Election because he fears that the Labour Party might not do too well in it?

Dr. Owen: I cannot confirm the last statement. I should have thought that the opinion polls showed that that would be a most ill-advised statement to make.
As to the procedure, it has been agreed that first the officials would look at the whole problem of trying to match up the question of getting a convenient time for the nine member States because they have local elections, referenda and other matters to consider. This will probably be discussed in the Council of Foreign Ministers prior to a meeting of the European Council. It is thought that a decision will be taken at the next meeting of the European Council.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting the other Foreign Ministers of the European Community.

Dr. Owen: At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th February.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Foreign Secretary feel that it would be helpful to the Minister of Agriculture, who is going to Berlin on Friday to discuss other matters on the common fisheries policy, to make it clear to the Council of Ministers that he will raise a veto to prevent any


enlargement of the Community until we have a satisfactory resolution of the common fisheries policy?

Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friend is going to a "green week", which is held there. I do not think that it is wise to assume that substantive discussions of the kind that the hon. Gentleman indicates necessarily will take place. But I think that the whole House has made clear its concern that we should have a fair and reasonable agreement over fishing.
It has been openly acknowledged that some progress has been made. My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland are vigorously pursuing the interests of this country with some considerable success. I believe that the whole House wishes them well.

Mr. Skinner: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) never mentioned Scotland in his supplementary question? He must be slipping. Will the Minister confirm that, with unemployment spiralling throughout Western Europe, the loss of production since we have been a member of the Common Market has been about half the national income of all the developing countries?
Is it not now apparent that we shall not resolve this problem either here or over there on the basis of the Treaty of Rome? It will be resolved on the basis of planning. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Common Market leaders when he sees them that the only way that they got another stage forward in the direct elections argument was by getting Ministers such as himself to come along to a meeting in a block vote? I almost thought that Arthur Deakin was leading them into the room to support the Prime Minister last night. That will not prevent some of us from voting against the guillotine tomorrow.

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend is in danger of becoming the very mirror of the Euro-theologians, whom he attacks so frequently, in Brussels. The sooner he realises that the Treaty of Rome is not an absolute and binding framework within which the European Community develops and evolves, the better. The

sooner he sees this as a flexible organisation of nine member States working together in the interests of achieving both industrial and economic policies which will help the member States at a time of a very difficult world recession, the better.

Mr. Stewart: At the forthcoming meeting, if there is discussion of the possible entry of Greece into the Community, wilt my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one further advantage to be obtained from that entry could be an improvement of the relations between the Greek Government and NATO?

Dr. Owen: It is a very fair point to make that when we take into account the Greek application we should take into account all the relevant political circumstances. It is in the overall interests of this country that, at a time when Greece wishes to do so, it should come back into full membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But the two are not linked. There are many applicant countries—Spain is one—in which people will be in favour of becoming members of the European Community but not necessarily members of NATO. Therefore, it is an indirect consequence, and it is not absolutely linked.

Mr. Dykes: On the new democracies—Spain in particular—would it not be a good idea for the Foreign Secretary to discuss with his opposite numbers in the EEC the prospects and methods of nationals voting overseas—or, rather, abroad—in any particular country? Is it not a remarkable fact that in the case of Spain, in their first General Election, several million Spaniards overseas voted, in a country in which they are not used to elections? Should we not emulate that example, at least in the European direct elections, to start with, and consider the repercussions later for our own national elections?

Dr. Owen: We can have such discussions. They are envisaged. That shows that many people are beginning to realise that before Europe is ready two member States have problems over direct elections. We need a little time to get a reasonable preparation before the direct elections take place

Mr. Wigley: In the context of Spain's application, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any discussion between himself and his colleagues of independent Basque representation within the EEC? In particular, has France made any representations to try to block Spain's entry because of the uncertainty of the Basque question?

Dr. Owen: No. I think that everyone considers that that is a matter for the Spanish people themselves to decide. Certainly that is my view.

Mr. Roper: What does my right hon. Friend expect to discuss on the subject of Spanish and Portuguese membership of the Community at the next Council meeting?

Dr. Owen: We are awaiting a Commission opinion on the Portuguese application, which I understand is unlikely to reach us before March. We are hopeful that we shall get a Commission opinion on Spain towards the end of the year. I hope that it will not be delayed beyond then. Then I think that the Community as a whole will want to look at the whole question of enlargement. We must look at each individual application on its own intrinsic merits. But I am in favour of a Community of 12. The sooner it can be enlarged to a Community of 12, the better.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he might be in any way embarrassed by the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has today complained about delay on the part of European Ministers agreeing on the devaluation of the green pound, when a few months ago when the Danes applied for devaluation of the green pound he was the person who demanded that there should be a delay for consideration?

Dr. Owen: That was on a technical point about. MCAs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in the spirit of sportsmanship for which he is famed, recognising that he had lost in the voting, immediately came to the Dispatch Box and said that he would fall in with the view of the House, and, the decision having been taken, in Brussels he feels it incumbent on him to carry it out faithfully on the basis of his long-held belief that Parliament is sovereign.

Mr. Heffer: When my right hon. Friend next meets the European Ministers, will he tell them that the British Government will not be slavishly following the United States in regard to the internal affairs of countries such as France and Italy, that it is a matter for those countries to decide how to deal with their own problems, and that we do not follow President Carter's interference, which is as bad in some respects as the interference of the Soviet Union in relation to Czechoslovakia?

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend and I have been engaged in newspaper columns in certain discussions about our views on Euro-Communism and its development, but on that particular issue I think that he and I agree. I said this in my lecture at Cambridge, and my hon. Friend will have noted the way in which this matter has been handled by the British Government.

Mr. Hurd: Following immediately on that point, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anyone is at work in the Community on drafting a declaration for Heads of Government, so that they can make clear in April to existing members and to applicants that respect for basic political freedoms is a condition for membership of the Community?

Dr. Owen: That is already in the Copenhagen statement. It is a fundamental principle that membership of the Community is based on an adhesion to democracy. On this there can be no compromise. Were any country to go against the democratic spirit, I personally believe that it would not be eligible for membership of the Community. As for the practical suggestion to Foreign Ministers that there should be a declaration which should make this clear, I think that a declaration would be one of the ways in which that could be done.

President of the Commission

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when last he met the President of the EEC Commission.

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC.

Mr. Judd: The President of the Commission and my right hon. Friend attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 17th January and my right hon. Friend expects that they will both be at the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th February.

Mr. Renton: What support does the President of the Commission now have from the Government in his restating the objective of economic and monetary union within the Community? Do the Government now think this a realistic objective in the long term?

Mr. Judd: Mr. Jenkins himself has compared the idea of the approach and what he describes as an eventual leap to monetary union with the notion of a long-jumper who lengthens his stride as he approaches the take-off point. We shall want to see how the small steps go and to be absolutely certain about where we are being asked to land before we take off.

Mr. Crawford: Now that unemployment in Scotland has reached 200,000, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Commission will do nothing to dismantle the temporary employment subsidy? We were told at referendum time that there would not be jobs for the boys in Europe. That is a very odd slogan now.

Mr. Judd: The Government are well aware of the deep commitment of the House to the temporary employment subsidy. We take the feelings of the House very seriously in our negotiations with the Commission.

Mr. Madden: When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets Mr. Jenkins, will he remind him that he was a member of the Government who introduced the temporary employment subsidy, and in the interests of thousands of workers who have been saved from the dole by the TES and the thousands who will be saved from the dole if TES continues, and in the interests of flexibility, will he tell Mr. Jenkins that the British Government will not tolerate interference from the Commission on this vitally important matter?

Mr. Judd: I certainly hope that the Commission is well aware that if it were, by its action, to aggravate the serious problems of unemployment in any member country, that would not be furthering the cause of the EEC.

Mr. Higgins: As Mr. Jenkins clearly needs instruction in the technique of long jumping, may we be told the Government's view in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)?

Mr. Judd: We see economic and monetary union as a very distant prospect. We would need to know a lot more about how it would work out before giving a commitment in detail.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Foreign Secretary ask Mr. Jenkins about the statement that he made to the EEC Assembly just before Christmas, when he said that he would not wish the Commission to place before the Assembly anything with which the Assembly did not agree? That was in the Official Journal of the EEC. Does that not mean that the EEC Assembly is exercising a very powerful influence on the proposals of the Commission and, therefore, that the Assembly has much greater power than my right hon. Friend and the Government are now claiming?

Mr. Judd: Mr. Jenkins is responsible for his own analysis and observations on this matter. But, as we have repeatedly made plain in stating our views on the future of the Community, the real political strength will lie in the Council of Ministers, the Ministers of which are accountable to their domestic Parliaments, such as this Parliament here at Westminster.

Passports and Driving Licences

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Euro-passports and Euro-driving licences.

Mr. Judd: The European Uniform Passport remains under discussion in the Community. There have been no recent developments.
As regards Community driving licences, I have nothing to add to the statement of 11th January made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Tranport in response to a Question


from my hon. Friend, the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).

Mr. Marten: Does the Minister agree that the proposal for a Euro-passport is only a cosmetic manifestation of a federal State? Scandinavia has a passport union while still using perfectly ordinary national passports. Therefore, this seems to be a question of setting up an unnecessary bureaucracy. The same applies in regard to driving licences. Will the Minister give an assurance that no decision will be taken by the Council of Ministers without the full consent of this House?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that this is not a high priority in the meetings and consultations of the Community. I see no immediate prospect of the Community moving forward on this front, as we have reassured the hon. Gentleman and those who feel as he does. There will certainly be a case for full debate in the House before we move forward.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Could not my hon. Friend manage to sound just a trifle more positive? Is he not aware that it is in measures of this kind, rather than in some of the grand stratagems and schemes—EMU, for example—that the British public can have benefits from the Community? Cannot he push on a bit on these simple matters, which should be capable of agreement?

Mr. Judd: There are very strongly held views on all sides about this passport, but I agree with those who argue that at least initially its real significance would be purely symbolic. In the time available to us, we want to concentrate on issues which will be of practical and meaningful significance to the people we represent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the reference to symbolic significance mean that the passport would retain the Royal Arms and the traditional and comforting words that the Minister's right hon. Friend the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs writes into each of our passports?

Mr. Judd: I can certainly put the hon. Gentleman's mind completely at ease. It would retain almost all the most important features of the traditional passport. It would just make some genuflexions in

the direction of the European Economic Community.

BELIZE

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the recent discussions in Mexico on the subject of the Guatemalan claims to part of Belize.

Mr. Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to Belize.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I will, with permission, answer these Questions together.
Accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), I held meetings yesterday and today with the Premier of Belize, the Hon. George Price, who was accompanied by Ambassador Courtenay and Mr. Shoman, the Attorney-General of Belize. There was a frank discussion of the problems facing Belize. The Belizean representatives reiterated the position of their Government that negotiations should continue on the basis of the United Nations resolution and the territorial integrity of Belize.
I confirmed that any settlement must be acceptable to the Government and people of Belize. I said that recent British discussions with the Guatemalans had been exploratory; various proposals, including the possibility of territorial adjustments, had been discussed but no agreements had been made or would be made which were not subject to the approval of the people of Belize. The Premier of Belize asked that the issue should be put directly to the people of Belize and that the Commonwealth should be associated with this process of consultation. I readily agreed to both these requests.
Both Governments agreed that their aim was early and secure independence for Belize.
The British Government will continue their search for a negotiated settlement, which has not yet been achieved, in discussions with Guatemala and other interested Governments.

Mr. Hunt: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's reply, as far as it goes. Will he agree that any ultimate decision to cede the southern part of Belize—which is rich in oil potential—to Guatemala, whose record on human rights and other matters is far from impressive, would be seen as a betrayal of a very loyal and struggling colony? Will he please comment on that?

Dr. Owen: I can say that no decision to cede territory would be made without the agreement of the people of Belize. I think that is perfectly clear. That is the assurance that I have consistently given and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done so much in the recent negotiations, has consistently and firmly held to that position.

Mr. Durant: I welcome a great deal of what is in the statement, but is the Foreign Secretary further aware that the population of Belize, who are very loyal to this country, look to us to defend their interests? He says that they will be consulted, but will he be a little more expressive as to the form in which he might see this consultation taking place, bearing in mind that Belize has a number of political parties?

Dr. Owen: I think we have to take account of that, but it is primarily with the Government of Belize that we would discuss these issues. I have given an assurance that the method of consultation would be discussed with them, and we would seek to reach agreement on this. I think that that is the fair way of proceeding. But I recognise that we have to take account of all views in Belize on this issue.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I am sure that we are all grateful for the statement. What steps will Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that the people of Belize as a whole approve of what is going on in their part of the world? If the people of Belize indicate that they will have no truck with the carving up of their country, what will be Her Majesty's Government's attitude?

Dr. Owen: If this situation were put to the people of Belize and they decided that they did not want any change, the status quo would continue. It would remain a Crown colony and Britain would defend the territorial integrity of Belize.
The problem we face is that the people of Belize have, for over a decade or more, naturally wanted increasingly to have their independence. We have a problem as to bringing that country to secure and stable independence, with the territorial claims and the associated problems around the boundaries of that country. The issue can either be just left alone or it has to be grappled with. I think that it should be grappled with—with the absolute safeguard that it will be the people of Belize who will decide.

Mr. Thorpe: I think we can welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement unequivocally but we are not absolutely certain and hope that he will answer three questions.
First, will he confirm that he agrees with Mr. Price that the territorial integrity of Belize must be inviolate prior to independence? Second, may we take it that consultation means his preparedness to have a referendum before independence? Third, if there are territorial problems, will he not discuss the possibility of a Commonwealth guarantee of the integrity of the boundaries of that country?

Dr. Owen: Anyone who knows Mr. Price, who has led his people for the last 14 years very successfully, knows that he would never agree to a sell-out, and the British Government have no intention of agreeing to a sell-out. Mr. Price has never changed his position on territorial integrity. He has maintained that and also his position on the United Nations resolution.
I have made it clear to the House that we are discussing, among other things, territorial adjustments. I think that it is right that those should be explored. But any territorial adjustment would be put to the people of Belize. As to the form in which it would be put, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is clearly one obvious way in which it could be done. I have undertaken to discuss this with the Government of Belize and to take account of the views of the people of Belize.
We have been trying to get guarantees for an independent Belize for many years, and I think it is important to get these guarantees. If I believed it were possible to get a United Nations guarantee, or something of that sort, we should probably not be involved in some of these difficult negotiations.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Belize Government was consulted in advance and its permission given in advance before the demarcation of territory with neighbouring countries was discussed?

Dr. Owen: The Premier of Belize and the Government have constantly, consistently and rightly held their position on territorial integrity and on the United Nations resolution. I think they recognise that the British Government have the ultimate responsibility for attempting to bring Belize to independence. Premier Price has attended all the formal negotiations and has been kept fully informed of all our informal discussions with the Guatamalans, but he has not shifted from his basic position, nor do I think it appropriate for him to do so. The British Government do not accept that there should be any claim on the territory of Belize. We are prepared to try to see whether negotiation can resolve the problem.

Mr. Amery: Having had some experience of negotiations with Guatemala on this question, may I ask the Foreign Secretary the following questions? Is he satisfied that the discussion of territorial adjustment on our part is compatible with the Commonwealth communications of 1975 and 1977, when we said that we would stand by the territorial integrity of Belize? When the Foreign Secretary commits himself to seeking the consent of the Belize people, is it not time that we considered what form that would take? Finally, has he had discussions with the Commonwealth Committee—which I think was set up under Mr. Adams, the Prime Minister of Barbados, to monitor and follow all these negotiations?

Dr. Owen: I attended a meeting of the Commonwealth group in New York, and I have always been very frank with them about what has been discussed. I am very grateful to the Commonwealth countries for observing the necessity to keep some of these negotiations private.
I have already said that the matter would be put directly to the people of Belize. I think that Premier Price will want to go back to Guatemala and make his own decisions as to how this should be done. I think that we can resolve that very easily, but I wish to preserve his position and that of the Government of Belize on that question.
As to being satisfied about the territorial adjustment and the Guatemalan attitude, I think that there is beginning to be a recognition in the whole of the region that it would be in the interests of the whole of the region to resolve this issue. I pay tribute to the great help that has been given by many other countries. They have differing views on the justice and rights of the claim, but they are all trying to get a settlement. It will not be easy to get a settlement, and the final decision will be taken by the people of Belize.

Mr. Rose: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his words leave one with a certain amount of uneasiness, not least after what happened in Cyprus? Will he give an unequivocal undertaking to the people of Belize that there shall be no violation of their wishes and that we shall safeguard their interests? Will he further take this opportunity of discussing the economic viability of the area, in particular the problem of citrus fruit developments upon which the economy of Belize so much depends?

Dr. Owen: On the economic problem, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must look seriously—both before and after any possible settlement is achieved—at ways of ensuring the greater economic strength and stability of Belize, particularly if it were to become independent.
With regard to security—let us be frank—one of the difficulties of getting negotiations of this sort on territorial adjustments is the fear that people would hold—were the people of Belize to decide not to accept such territorial adjustments—about the intentions of the British Government in holding particularly that territory which has been discussed.
We have made perfectly clear to the Government of Guatemala that we would be prepared to uphold that territory. Our readiness to discuss this issue and to put it to the people of Belize does not mean


any weakening whatever of the British Government's position. If the people of Belize decide that they do not want a territorial adjustment we shall then defend the territorial integrity of Belize as a Crown colony. That is a firm commitment.
Over the last two years we have gone to the defence of the people of Belize and, if necessary, we shall do so again. I hope that that will not be necessary.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that during any referendum which may take place the British Government will not bring any pressure on the people of Belize as to how they should vote in that referendum?

Dr. Owen: I shall not bring any pressure but I certainly think it right to explain the case. The British Government will not put the issue to the people of Belize unless they think that this is an issue which they should discuss. I shall probably make a recommendation—in fact, certainly make a recommendation—otherwise we would not put the issue to them. But there will be no pressure. This will be a free choice. That was one of the reasons why I readily agreed that the Commonwealth should be associated in the process of consulting the people of Belize.

Mr. Dalyell: What is being done to win the good will of the Organisation of American States?

Dr. Owen: The people of Belize, as they have every right, want to be an independent country. They wish to have their independence against a stable background. The Organisation of American States is important if Belize as an independent Belize is to have that stability. We need to make certain that some of the territorial claims on this territory are abandoned, and if the Organisation agrees to preserve whatever boundaries would then be agreed to, I believe that Belize can look forward to a secure independence.

Mr. Newens: I heartily welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Can he tell the House what contacts he has had with the United States and what pre-

cisely is the attitude of the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the United States were prepared to make it absolutely clear that there will be no support whatever for Guatemala's pretences, there would be very little likelihood indeed of Guatemala being able to push ahead in the way that she has in the past?

Dr. Owen: In the past a point of some major disagreement with successive United States Administrations has been the question of Guatemala. I pay tribute to the fact that this Administration, particularly Secretary of State Vance, has taken a great deal of interest in the problem, recognised it and wants to see it resolved. Its help and involvement in it has been recognised by all sides. If agreement could be reached, the fact that it would be underwritten by the United States would be one of the greatest safeguards for an independent Belize.

Miss Joan Lestor: Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about Britain defending the territorial integrity of Belize as a Crown colony, may I ask whether he agrees that this is a very different situation from the situation in which Belize might find herself if she went independent? Will he therefore agree that it will be very sad indeed if Belize independence is held up simply because we cannot defend her territorial rights, which we are honour-bound to do?

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend poses a very fair question. It has been the view of successive Governments over periods of time now, when we have been going through the process of decolonisation, that it is incompatible and impossible to give a defence guarantee to colonies on their becoming independent. That has been one of the problems. If a country becomes independent, it is difficult to give a firm defence commitment to it. One of the reasons we have been involved in these negotiations is to try to resolve this issue. I do not believe that our involvement in Belize would end precipitately at the beginning of independence. If there were a negotiated settlement, we would phase out our involvement, but as a full member of the Commonwealth, Belize would be closely associated with this country.

Mr. John Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the problem we have is in the reconciliation of the expressions "territorial integrity" and "territorial adjustments"? Will he now confirm to us that if the people of Belize are consulted on a proposal of whatever kind, no duress whatever will be exercised upon them, either through the defence lever or in any other way, in order to force them into accepting what would otherwise have been an unacceptable arrangement?

Dr. Owen: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That would be indefensible, particularly since Belize is one of the last of the colonies. If we are to depart from the strong traditions that we have always held with Belsize, the decision should be freely made. It must be made without duress and freely made, but with the full understanding of the consequences of the situation. I agree that there is a choice between two evils. Many people want independence immediately without any form of territorial cession and no negotiation. That is what we have been unable to achieve over the last few years. They must grapple with the problem whether, in order to achieve independence, they will have to make some compromise. That is a choice which I think they can make.

THERMAL REACTOR POLICY

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about nuclear reactors for the British power programme.
The House will recall that on 28th June 1976 I announced that I was taking stock of progress with the steam generating heavy water reactor programme at the suggestion of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
Since then we have carried out a thorough review of thermal reactor policy. The National Nuclear Corporation has submitted its comparative assessment of thermal reactor systems, which has been made available to the House. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—NII—has given its advice on the generic safety issues of the pressurised water reactor, which has also been made available to

the House. There has been extensive consultation with all the main parties.
It is the unanimous advice of all concerned that in the changed circumstances of today the SGHWR should not be adopted for the next power station orders. The Government have accordingly decided that it would be right to discontinue work on the SGHWR.
The Government agree with the electricity supply boards that two early nuclear orders are needed and that these must be advanced gas-cooled reactors. The Government have therefore decided to authorise the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board to begin work at once with a view to ordering one AGR station each as soon as possible.
This decision will enable our nuclear industry to build on our extensive experience of gas-cooled technology. The generating boards have already begun to accumulate operating experience with the AGRs which have so far been commissioned. The completion of the remaining stations in the existing AGR programme and the successful construction of the next AGR orders will be the first priority in our thermal nuclear programme.
The Government also consider, having regard to the importance of nuclear power and present knowledge of the different systems, that the United Kingdom's thermal reactor strategy should not at this stage be dependent upon an exclusive commitment to any one reactor system, and that in addition to the AGR we must develop the option of adopting the PWR system in the early 1980s. This view is also supported by the electricity supply industry.
The electricity supply industry has indicated that, to establish the PWR as a valid option, it wishes to declare an intention that, provided design work is satisfactorily completed and all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances have been obtained, it will order a PWR station. It does not consider that a start on site could be made before 1982. This intention, which does not call for an immediate order or a letter of intent at the present time, is endorsed by the Government.
All future orders beyond those which I have indicated today will be a matter for decision at the appropriate time. Our


aim is to establish a flexible strategy for the United Kingdom nuclear power programme in the light of developing circumstances. We believe that these decisions will do so.

Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome this long delayed but extremely important statement? Is he further aware that we believe that it was right not to abandon the AGR at this stage of its development, and we hope that it will prove to be successful? We also recognise that the current lack of experience of the AGR makes it prudent to develop the PWR option. Will he tell the House what those paragraphs are supposed to mean in exact terms? Is the Government consent that which applies to the normal financial and technical approvals, or is there still a residual policy decision to be taken whether the Government are prepared to go ahead with the PWR?
Is he aware that the answer to that question is most important if we are to have the confidence of those who will be involved in the development and design work, if there is to be an order at the end of the year? Is he further aware that in respect of the SGHWR we accept the need to cancel that programme, but can he give an indication to those who work at Winfrith whether there will be an ongoing rôle for those workers in a future nuclear programme?
My final question relates to the implications of the design work involved in the AGR and also the PWR. What implication will this decision have for possible fast-breeder development? The House is aware of the unhappy decision-making process in the nuclear industry in the last four or five years. We on this side of the House hope that at last a nuclear policy will emerge on which the industry can plan for the future.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I shall try to deal with the issues he raised.
I welcome his endorsement of our decision that the gas-cooled technology on which we have been working for 20 or 30 years in this country should be continued in the way I have described. In regard to PWR, if he carefully examines my statement, which was written with great precision, he will see why I do not

want to go beyond it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When people talk about ordering on the basis of PWR, what design have they in mind? We have reflected the view of the generating board, and it wants a valid option to be available, subject to the normal consent procedures which exist in Government and so on. But there must be design for any station, whether PWR or any other which is to go through the nuclear inspectorate and which must go on site and be approved. That is contained precisely in the paragraphs in question.
This is a genuine desire by the generating board that there should be an option available. In its judgment the site work cannot begin until 1982. It will be seen from my statement that the Government endorse that intention.
On the subject of Winfrith, that plant is operating and supplying power to the grid at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about research?"] There are research people working on this matter, and I shall provide a fuller answer to the hon. Gentleman. I did not feel it right to go into the implications for Winfrith in detail before I made my statement to the House. Therefore, I would be grateful if he would give me more time to reply on the fast-breeder reactor. This is the next decision that falls to be made.
In general those who have favoured PWR have inclined to the view that the fast breeder should come later so as not to impact on the PWR, whereas there are those in the advanced gas-cooled reactor school who favour an earlier start with the fast breeder. That is a decision that we shall have to consider in the light of my statement today. That is next on the agenda. I think I have dealt with all the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Palmer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the first part of his statement, and I accept as inevitable the second part of it. Will he say a few words about the hitherto secret agreement entered into a year or so ago between the nuclear construction company in this country and the American Westinghouse Company for a licence to manufacture PWRs in this country? Will he release details of that agreement and say whether it includes any restrictive


clauses that are against the interests of this country from the point of view of exports?

Mr. Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I congratulate his Select Committee on the work which it has carried out on the difficult problems. I shall make clear that the arrangements reached between the NNC and Westinghouse are not arrangements to which the Government are party, but my hon. Friend will recall that in order to make it possible to give information about the pressure water reactor it was necessary for the safety aspect to be undertaken by Dr. Marshall and the inspectorate. It was necessary to enter into agreement with Westinghouse for that purpose.
However, it is too early to say what would flow from the decision which I have announced today on PWR because the NNC will now have to discuss with the generating board the necesary work for developing the PWR design. Westinghouse is not the only company working on PWR design. I have seen the Kraft Werke Union in connection with these consultations. It does not follow from what I have said today that the design will derive from past agreements. It might be necessary to reach future agreements.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his decision is welcome and will be likely to produce the additional energy within the necessary timescale? Will he reassure the House that by this means it will be possible to retain policy-making capacity in this country and also, I am glad to say, to employ the skills and provide badly needed employment for many of my constituents in Renfrewshire?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for what the right hon. Lady has said and I congratulate her on being the first hon. Member to point out that this is not merely an arid technical decision but involves jobs for people of this country, including the right hon. Lady's constituents, some of whom I visited. It also provides for the British nuclear industry, which has been a leader in this sphere and still retains outstanding skills, a continuing basis for employment and exports. That industry will also fill a key rôle in meeting future

energy needs. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her patience over this long-delayed decision.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of what was said a few years ago by his predecessor, it looks as though, in football parlance, we are facing another draw, and that extra time will have to be played between my right hon. Friend—it may not even be him—and whomever else it may be on the other side? Does he agree that employment could also have been created if these power stations had been coal-fired instead of nuclear-powered? Will he acknowledge that this is not a good day for the miners at a time when they are being urged to produce more coal and when there are more than 30 million tons of coal on the ground? Although a decision may be some years ahead, will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that this decision will not create pit closures?

Mr. Benn: I do not know what football team my hon. Friend follows, but I recall the long campaign which he conducted on Drax B. That was a 1–0 victory for the mining industry. Drax B will provide a great deal of work and demand for coal. It was widely welcomed by the National Union of Mineworkers, the Coal Board and those who work in the industry.
My hon. Friend knows that the NUM has strongly registered its support for nuclear power. 'This is an indigenous fuel and it will mean more work for the people in industry, supplying boilers, turbines and other equipment. I regard the announcement as a good thing for the people working in the energy industries. It was strongly pressed upon me at the first meeting of the Energy Commission, which the NUM also welcomes.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What commercial possibilities are involved in the statement on reactor choice? I understand that Britain has not exported a nuclear system as a whole since 1959 and that export orders would go a long way towards helping the electricity and boiler-making industries. Will the decision to go ahead with early AGRs effectively prevent a commercial fast-breeder reactor from being established at Dounreay, where it would be welcome, once the


inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is completed?

Mr. Benn: I have said that it would not be possible to reach a decision on the fast-breeder reactor until we had a clear decision of the sort that I have announced on the next reactor to be built. I shall come back to that matter when I am able to make a firmer statement. We are spending between £60 million and £70 million a year on the development of the fast-breeder reactor. The 250-megawatt electrical reactor operating at Dounreay is the most advanced and finest fast-breeder reactor to be found anywhere in the world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit us of having delayed work on the fast-breeder.
Exports are a factor that need to be taken into account. We have a substantial export business in nuclear fuel and, subject to the inquiry, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, we see prospects for that. My announcement means that we shall be generating electricity in Scotland and in England and Wales using a reactor which, in our judgment, is the right choice and which, according to the figures presented to me, will generate electricity very competitively compared with other fuels.

Mr. Rost: Why has the right hon. Gentleman not committed himself more positively to the important proposals put by Rolls-Royce Associates on the design and construction of PWRs based upon British technology and many years of experience in design and construction of PWRs in this country?
Instead of ducking the issue yet again, he should have shown a greater sense of urgency in giving us the PWR alternatives so that we could rebuild our nuclear energy with export potential.

Mr. Benn: I have met Rolls-Royce on a number of occasions to discuss these matters. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman would suggest that power for this country should be generated on the basis of nuclear reactors that were built for submarines. Rolls-Royce has technology which is of value in the development of PWR work generally. That is widely recognised. However, I hope

that hon. Members will not confuse high pressure commercial lobbying with the real arguments of merit and the practical questions of developing a reactor system in this country. That must entail discussions at great length with the customers, who agree with the statement, and with the industries that will play some part. Rolls-Royce represents 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the potential business, while the boiler industry accounts for 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. I am bound to take seriously the balance of interests in this matter.
As to upgrading the size of the submarine reactors, we saw at Winfrith that one cannot uprate a small reactor to operational size without running into extra problems.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a great deal of pleasure in my constituency and in the West of Scotland and the North of England with the decision which has been made? Is he aware that he is correct to stress the importance of a continuing réle for the boiler-making industry? Many of us are pleased that he is going carefully on the fast-breeder reactor, because this raises a number of extremely important issues. Can he give us an idea of the timescale of the work on the ground in relation to the two AGRs?

Mr. Benn: I do not order the reactors or the power stations. That falls on the customer to determine. The Government consider the advice of various bodies concerned in the light of requests from the customers—the generating board and the Scottish board. I must refer my hon. Friend to that fact. I am grateful for what he said. This argument has involved a greater use of pressure on me than I have seen in almost any other issue that I have had anything to do with and it has included a systematic attack upon British technology. There was an example on the BBC's "Nationwide" programme last night which was an outrageously unfair comment.
I hope that the House will recognise that there is real value in all the experience that we have in gas-cooled technology and that for us to write off that, as some have urged, and order a system that we have never developed to British safety standards would be highly irresponsible. I hope that the House and


the country will appreciate the importance of handling this matter with care.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking the first decision in this area for seven years. The question remains whether he has got the answer right. I hope that the decision will be fully debated by the House, especially in the light of the long-term export interests of this country.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are grave doubts about the AGR for export purposes and that there is an enormous potential in the fast-breeder reactor with which the right hon. Gentleman is playing? We need a firm decision about the PWR, and the right hon. Gentleman should be more forthcoming about the fast-breeder reactor.

Mr. Benn: I think that I have dealt with the fast-breeder reactor. There is a general view, with which I am sympathetic, that this might be suitable for international collaboration. We should have to get the framework right.
Exports are an important factor. We already export components for PWRs, particularly heat exchangers and so on, and the House will be aware that in the last three or four years the forecast of installed capacity for PWRs worldwide has been cut by about half while the installed industrial capacity to meet those orders has perhaps as much as doubled.
We have to be realistic about the export possibilities, and the House should be aware that the gas-cooled technology has considerable potential and possibilities. For example, high temperature reactors may turn out to be the choice of the world. Other countries may decide to double bank on their reactor systems, as we shall be doing. It is important that we do not snuff out our experience of gas-cooled technology. These are the factors which led to my announcement.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by the whole turbine generating industry? Can he explain how it is that the CEGB has been fighting to get these two power stations while demanding that it should be compensated for ordering Drax B on the ground that it does not need any more power stations?

Mr. Benn: It is partly a question of timescale, but my hon. Friend has put a good question. The AGRs which have been announced are to meet the load in 1987. The coal-fired station at Drax will take some time to build, though it will be quicker to complete. There is on the agenda consideration of further coal-fired stations which I know the National Coal Board and the NUM would be interested to see.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the timing of the fast breeder reactor, given that the PWR will not be on site until 1982 and not generating electricity until five years later? As it will take about 12 years from the time the order was given to get a commercial demonstration reactor in action at Dounreay, does the Secretary of State not think that there is a danger of our lead in the fast-breeder business being lost through a failure to take firm decisions early enough in the light of the difficulties that we are facing with the thermal reactors?

Mr. Benn: I think that one of the arguments which have to be gone into with great care is the extent to which the resources are available to have simultaneously a wide range of reactor systems. Taking the date of 1990, the Magnox stations will still be there, although some of them will be moving towards the end of their operational life. The AGRs will be in the middle of their life. If the PWR proposals that I have announced today go along their expected path, there could be a PWR operating. Then the question is, what about the fast-breeder's relationship with that?
It is for these reasons that we have tried to take each decision in due time and not to accelerate those where further thought is required. In any case, we have announced that there will be and, in my judgment, should be a proper inquiry into the fast-breeder before a decision is made to construct a commercial fast-breeder.

Hooley: How much reliance can we place on the advice of generating boards which fell over themselves to declare that Drax B was not necessary and not wanted and demanded massive subsidies to build it at all and which now fall over themselves to go along the nuclear road? Can my right hon. Friend


say whether this decision will pre-empt serious attempts to develop alternative energy resources because the money will be swallowed up by this perennial demand for nuclear reactors?

Mr. Benn: On that latter point, I do not think that my hon. Friend need fear that. The work which will flow from my announcement today will be building power stations needed for electricity purposes. The money which would be, will be or is going into alternative sources will come from different funds and will not therefore be strictly competed for.
However, my hon. Friend's point is a fair one. In 1973–74, it was strongly urged upon the then Secretary of State for Energy that 18 PWRs would be needed between 1974 and 1983, and here we are, four years later, without having had one ordered, and still the position looks quite different from that in 1974. Therefore, I think it right—and that is why the Energy Commission has been set up—that we should review our forecasts in the light of experience and not commit resources firmly until we are sure that identified need can be confirmed. That is the basis upon which I am proceeding.

Mr. Evelyn King: The Secretary of State has announced a decision which will give the gravest disappointment in Dorset, but he has not been specific about its effects, which may have grave economic repercussions. Is it not at least unfortunate that, his Ministry having a year or two ago announced one decision in respect of Winfrith which was encouraging to it, he has now reversed that decision? Can he say how many millions of pounds the Government have put into Winfrith and how many of those millions, as a result of this decision, will be prove to have been wasted? Can he say whether there are to be redundancies in this area among highly skilled people, what is likely to be the size and effect of those redundancies, and what compensation is likely to be paid?

Mr. Benn: I said something about Winfrith a moment ago. It was not and would not have been right for me to discuss with the Atomic Energy Authority or with the people at Win-

frith the Government's decision that I have announced today in advance of telling the House. Therefore, there was bound to be very limited scope for discussion about matters which concern the hon. Gentleman and his constituency. However, the overwhelming part of the sum spent on the SGHWR was spent on building the Winfrith reactor, which I was present in his constituency to open 10 years ago. It is producing power there.
There is other work going on at Winfrith, and the one part of my statement which should not have surprised the hon. Gentleman was the reference to the decision that we would not proceed with the SGHWR. It became known 18 months ago that Sir John Hill and the Atomic Energy Authority Board were recommending that it should not be continued. I do not think that anyone in the House or even in Winfrith expected me to announce today that the SGHWR would continue. So there was plenty of time for this decision to have been absorbed in that sense by the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The House has indicated its gratitude to my right hon. Friend for at least making the decision which he has announced today, although I am sure that the South of Scotland Electricity Board will be very disappointed by the decision not to go ahead with the SGHWR. However, I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is dealing with the total energy requirements of the United Kingdom. But although it is correct that he should be indicating that the AGR should go ahead, why is he dealing with the PWR? Does he not realise that there are enough energy resources in the country, with oil and coal, to cut out the PWR and go straight to the other sources of energy which we can have much later, including the fast-breeder reactor?

Mr. Benn: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the South of Scotland Board will be disappointed by my statement. It is what it has been pressing very strongly on me. It is true that the South of Scotland Board, when Frank Tombs was the chairman—he has now come to the Electricity Council—advocated the SGHWR. But the South of Scotland Board would not wish to proceed with the SGHWR in the circumstances of the present review.
I also recognise that there are in this country a number of resources. There is oil. There is gas. There is coal aplenty. Therefore, the pace, rôle and speed will be different from those in countries where these resources are not available. But all the forward forecasts, which go to the first quarter of the twenty-first century, indicate a growing rôle for nuclear power. With such a very big dependence on it—we shall shortly be 20 per cent. dependent on nuclear power—there is a case for having this valid option that I have announced today available to us, because the generating boards have a responsibility to see that electricity is available.

Mr. Emery: Everyone realises that these decisions are very difficult. However, will the right hon. Gentleman now say what has been the cost to the nation of the cancellation of the SGHWR programme? Will he also say what is the cost overrun of the existing AGR programme? As we are going into AGRs, I think that we ought to know that. Will the right hon. Gentleman also say by how much that programme is behind schedule? Finally, will he be quite frank with us? Although exports are immensely important, there is next to no chance of Britain exporting AGR reactors.

Mr. Benn: I cannot see what purpose is achieved by making a bland statement to the effect that there is no future worldwide demand for the system that we have worked on for 22 years. I am fed up with reading in the papers that our own technology, upon which we have worked and which has produced electricity for us reliably and ahead of time of any other country has no export value. The Magnox stations and the new AGRs coming on give this country a world lead in technology. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that other countries will want to be dependent for ever on a single system and that there will be no further developments of gas-cooled technology.
The figures asked for by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) are as follows. About £145 million has been spent on the SGHWR, most of it in connection with the building of the Winfrith Station, and about £50 million has been spent since 1974 on the SGHWR. I cannot give figures in relation to the cancellation charges. They will involve commercial

negotiations which I am not able to anticipate. But the hon. Gentleman should also know that worldwide there have been practical difficulties, not confined to the AGR stations, in the development of nuclear power. It would be wrong to suppose that the only problems have been those in this country. There are problems worldwide. British safety standards are probably the highest in the world, and we intend to keep them that way.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Rolls-Royce has acquired skills and expertise which should be used and developed, and the possibility of worldwide orders for this expertise could mean increased employment in the industry. Surely we must take advantage of this.

Mr. Benn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, I have visited Rolls-Royce on a number of occasions. The company was a partner in putting in a bid in 1965. In answering an earlier supplementary question I was making it clear that no one was suggesting that it was possible simply to uprate a submarine reactor. The development of a commercial reactor for the purpose of generating electricity would use the expertise of Rolls-Royce, but it would not simply be built on its present experience. It would have to be utilised, and I have no doubt that it will be.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I make an appeal to the House? I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising—so they need not look sad—but I have a lot of business before we come to the timetable motion, and I shall be grateful if hon. Members could now move a little faster with questions and answers.

Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if this country's industrial strategy is to succeed, we require the cheapest electricity in Western Europe? Is he certain that the AGRs will produce that? Why did he not make a direct offer for a European model under a British-German consortium involving Kraft Werke Union for one of its PWRs? This would help out if the right hon. Gentleman has any antipathy to Westinghouse reactors. Does he not concede that by granting two more AGRs now he has


let the cat out of the bag about the Wind-scale report?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has asked many quesions. First, he says that cheap power matters, and that is right, but safety matters, too—

Mr. Skeet: Ours is the best in Europe.

Mr. Benn: Simply to confine the comment to the cheapest, without regard to safety interests, would be unreal.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman pinpointed the reason why it should not be possible to order a PWR or issue a letter of intent now. It is that there are a number of designs—the Westinghouse design and the Kraft Werke Union design. It would be the task of the NNC to discuss design alternatives with the customers and put them before the nuclear inspectorate.
As to the industrial strategy, which I agree is important in this context, it is building upon our own industrial strength, so that we have a nuclear industry for the future. The importation of reactors from abroad, without regard to our domestic industry, could be absolutely fatal to this country's long-term interests.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I am sure that everyone wishes the AGR programme well, but would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that within the past few days the Canadians have announced a major programme in collaboration with the Italian nuclear industry to build two large SGHWR stations in Italy and develop a joint programme for exporting SGHW and CANDU reactor technology all over the world? Is not this significant in the light of the kind of unanimity that the right hon. Gentleman implied?
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the understandable postponement of the fast breeder technology, as this implies a 60-to-1 greater dependence on the supply of uranium, is he absolutely certain and happy about the prospects of uranium supply to the conventional nuclear industry?

Mr. Benn: It is true that fast-breeders, by burning fuel produced in thermal reactors, produce for the fuel they burn a 60-to-1 factor of advantage. But in order to secure the advantage of that over the whole utilisation of uranium in this

country one would have to have a balance of thermal and fast-breeder programmes that, even on the most rapid development, could not be available until the middle of the next century. Therefore, some of the writing about the FBR is misleading, in giving people the impression that we could multiply present uranium stocks by a factor of 60 by going on with the FBR in Dounreay, or wherever it is to be built.
We have had a number of discussions with the Canadians about CANDU. It is not correct to describe it as a steam-generating heavy water reactor. It is a different design. The Canadians are pushing it as hard as they can, and good luck to them. But it would involve building a big heavy water plant in this country.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters carefully, will know that none of the solutions advocated in an exchange across the Floor of the House has quite the simplicity that might appear from reading Hansard. We have examined the matter carefully but do not believe that CANDU would represent the right solution to our problems.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Government must have made certain assumptions about lead times for the various systems before coming to the conclusions they have announced today. What lead times from ordering to coming on stream have been assumed for the three principal types discussed today—the fast-breeder reactor, the PWR and the advanced gas-cooled reactor?

Mr. Benn: That is a fair question, but it cannot be answered, because lead times depend on clearance through the nuclear inspectorate. I have spoken to it in the past two days about the modifications that it might be likely to seek for the AGR or the PWR. In the case of the fast-breeder reactor the Government are committed to a full public inquiry, which will be under by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In the event, these could be big factors in determining the lead times.
In general, it is quicker to build what one knows best. It takes longer to build what one has not built before and longest to build what has never been built before. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Latham: Are not the House and the taxpayer entitled to a


rather better explanation of the disastrous decision taken by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1974, and of its cost to the public, than "changed circumstances", as the right hon. Gentleman said today? How can we be sure that he has the matter right this time?

Mr. Benn: The party that the hon. Gentleman supports can proudly claim that it remained without a decision of any kind from 1970 to 1974. I do not know whether that was the right decision. It may well be that decisions taken during that period would have been based on forecasts of matters that have so radically changed that now one would look back and say that they were wrong. There has been a complete transformation of the energy scene, largely as a result of the OPEC oil price increases over the past four or five years.
I set up the committee to look at reactor choice in 1970, when I left office, and no decision had been announced when we returned to office in 1974. I should be very surprised if the previous Government did not take the same interest in the steam-generating heavy water reactor as we took when we came back into power, because there was a widespread view then that the SGHWR had a great deal to offer. I think that the decision taken then, in the light of all the circumstances, would not be hard to justify.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his vacillation in this matter, and now his failure to press ahead with the PWR, will effectively ensure that Britain's nuclear industry will have no marketable export commodity in the short and medium term? Is not that to be regretted?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is an expert at abuse in lieu of argument or any serious consideration of the facts. If he had devoted two minutes' time to the matter, he would know very well that if we had ordered PWRs now there would have been no industry capable of building

them, for the reason already given, that no design for a PWR has been cleared by the nuclear inspectorate. Therefore, such a decision would have had a disastrous effect on the industry in this country. It was the unanimous view of the industry that two AGRs should be ordered. It is time the hon. Gentleman did some homework instead of merely shouting abuse.

Mr. Tom King: May I press the Secretary of State on one point that he did not make clear? He rightly said that the wording of the commitment to a PWR is extremely carefully prepared. Will he tell the House quite clearly whether, subject to the various safety clearances and other necessary provisions, he genuinely accepts the commitment to building a PWR in this country?

Mr. Benn: This is the central question of the paragraph, and I shall answer it in the way I answered it before. The customers in this case genuinely want a valid option open to them to build a PWR. They have indicated that and the Government have endorsed it. However, the customers do not wish—nor do the possible partners in the case of Westinghouse and Kraft Werke Union seek—either a firm order now or a letter of intent. That is the basis upon which the work will proceed in the spirit that I have indicated.
But it is right, particularly with the timescale of 1982 that the generating board gave me, that there should be added the words:
all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances".
I understand the hon. Gentleman's wanting to press this point, but, if he were suggesting that there was some deviousness in the form of words, he will find that we have reflected faithfully what any Government are open to reflect, given the time scale and the necessary uncertainty of the clearance through the inspectorate until it has actually been achieved. That is the basis upon which we have made the statement.

EDUCATION ACT 1944 (AMENDMENT)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Sections 39 and 55 of the Education Act 1944; and for connected purposes.
For the benefit of the few hon. Members who are not aware of the problems of school transport, I should make it plain that the sections I have referred to are those identified by the Hodges Committee as being of central importance in the whole subject of trying to bring about some amendment of the present system of school transport. The Hodges Committee was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and reported on 25th October 1973. I obtained the leave of the House to introduce a Bill in the same terms two years ago, but since that time we have not been able to make a great deal of progress.
The central item in the Hodges Committee's recommendations was that there should be a break in the connection between the school attendance requirement and the provision of transport. These subjects are linked by the device of the walking distance. The Hodges Committee recommended doing away with any statutory limit. This occasioned some disquiet among local authorities, because they had found this provision a useful hook on which to hang any actions for truancy. My Bill does not go so far as the recommendations of the Hodges Committee in this respect. I merely seek to reduce the statutory distances of two miles and three miles by one mile in each case.
I follow the Hodges Committee in seeking to introduce a flat rate of charge right across the country for all those who wish to take advantage of the provision of school transport. The Hodges Committee, in its report, gave three main reasons for this recommendation. Safety of the children was the paramount reason. It also referred to integration with public transport and the cost to the parent and the local authority. In that part of its report on the safety of children, it referred to the large numbers of mothers tied to homes by small children

or having to go to work to maintain the family income. It referred to the increase in motor traffic and to the dangerous condition of footpaths, particularly in country areas. The report also referred to the menace posed, regrettably, in some secluded areas, to the personal safety of the children.
I cannot believe that anyone in this House could imagine that since 1973 any of these factors I have set out has improved. My postbag has been full of complaints about the absence of footpaths, the unlit condition of many roads and the dangers to children from malicious-minded perverts. The position has been made worse by the cut in the rate support grant for shire counties which has reduced maintenance on all forms of highway.
The cost of providing school transport in England and Wales in 1971 was about £35 million. By 1975, when a circular was eventually issued to local authorities on the subject, it had risen to £68 million. In my own county this year, the expenditure envisaged under this heading is £2·3 million, which was the total amount spent at the time of the Hodges Report on the transport of children under the age of eight. Costs are increasing rapidly. My proposal for a flat rate of charge will admittedly require that parents whose children now receive free transport because they have to travel distances over the statutory limits, will have to contribute something towards the cost of getting their children to school. But the proportion of children so affected is about 3 per cent. in the case of primary pupils who live beyond the limit of the statutory walking distance.
The statutory walking distance has become totally discredited in modem conditions, not by the laziness of the children but by the safety factors to which I have referred and by the increasing element of discrimination, because of the increase in costs, against those children who live, for instance, 2·99 miles from their school. The feeling of anomaly has been exacerbated by the differing practices between local authorities and the varied use of discretionary powers in this area. It is simply no longer tolerable to many parents that these discrepancies should be allowed to continue. They have been made worse since the time of the Hodges Report.
I have a new reason, in addition to those I have put forward, for seeking to introduce this Bill. It is that it will provide parents with an additional element of choice over the school which their child is able to attend. Once the principle of the flat rate of charge is accepted, children will no longer be tied to having to attend the nearest available school. In this way we shall be making some contribution towards making a reality of parental choice and at the same time doing something to preserve the wishes of those who seek to send their children to denominational schools.
When I first sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill in the same terms two years ago, I quoted a letter from my county council which referred to the
determination we all share about the need to try to break the present impasse nationally on school transport.
It is in that spirit that I ask the leave of the House to introduce the Bill, quoting the words of the Hodges Committee:
We have been acutely conscious both of the urgency and of the wide range of the problems.
Action groups have been set up to cope with this problem, in counties as far apart as Cumbria and Hampshire. There is a

wide realisation of the need to do something urgently to remedy the situation.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has had the courtesy to explain that she would be unable to be present this afternoon, is due to receive a report from the local authorities' management advisory committee which has been studying the administrative problems. I believe that it will now be possible to give effect to the provisions of this Bill, which I seek the leave of the House to introduce.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hal Miller, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Fred Evans, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar, Mr. Charles Morrision, Mr. John Watkinson and Mr. William Wilson.

EDUCATION ACT 1944 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Hal Miller accordingly presented a Bill to amend Sections 39 and 55 of the Education Act 1944; and for connected purpose; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th April and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

The following motion stood upon the Order Paper:
That the Report [24th January] of the Business Committee be now considered.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:


Allotted day
Proceedings in Committee
Time for conclusion


Twelfth day
Clauses 81 to 83
7 p.m.



Schedule 17 to end of paragraph 11
10 p.m.


Thirteenth and fourteenth days
Remainder of Schedule 17
7.30 p.m. on thirteenth day.



New clauses, new Schedules
9 p.m. on fourteenth day.



Schedule 16
11 p.m. on fourteenth day.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of my point of order is to submit that the Government's proposal to change the allocation of time is out of order and should not be proceeded with or voted upon.
When I received my Order Paper this morning I was not surprised, after the events of yesterday, to observe the first Order of the Day. However, when I came to look for the report of the Business Committee I had some difficulty in finding it. I did not expect to find it under the Orders of the Day, but I expected to find it on the list of Amendments. I refer to the Paper providing the list of amendments to the Scotland Bill. However, the report is not among that list of amendments. I looked for it further, and found it eventually among the items in the Votes and Proceedings, where the Business Committee's procedures are duly reported.
Never before, as far as I was able to find out this morning, has a procedure of this sort been adopted. The report that the House is now being asked to consider and vote upon does not appear on the Order Paper, but such a report appears, as a general rule, on the sheet of amendments so that the House may know what is expected of it. I know of no precedent for suddenly lifting one item out of the Votes and Proceedings and regarding it as part of the Order Paper when in fact it is not.
It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Leader of the House said:
Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman does
—the right hon. Gentleman was referring to me—
what the Order Paper is for.
As reported in the following column, Mr. Speaker, you said:
I point out to the House that if there is a motion to be put on the Order Paper, clearly, the House will have a chance tomorrow when it comes up."—[Official Report, 24th January 1978; Vol 942, c. 1184–5.]
Motion No. 1 of itself may be regarded as in order, but I submit that in fact it is not in order because the attendant report of the Business Committee is not on the Order Paper and not on the sheets of amendments. Therefore, I submit that the Government should not proceed with it, and that it should be withdrawn.

Mr. J. Grimond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish strongly to support the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It is now nearly quarter to five, and the Government have already dealt with two statements on a day on which the guillotine is to fall at 7 o'clock. The new rule of business has been brought in suddenly at the last moment. It will have the effect of precluding debate on an amendment that is vital to my constituency and of great interest to the House. If we are to conduct our affairs in this way, we shall make an absolute farce of democracy. I


ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule the new motion, the new division of business, out of order and to say that it should be withdrawn.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member. I am required by the House and by Standing Orders to put the Question forthwith. The House gives me instructions, and the Standing Order requires me to put the Question forthwith. However, I have exercised my discretion to allow the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to make his point of order and for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to do likewise. I propose to allow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who raised the matter yesterday, to make his point of order, after which I must obey the instructions of the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: I for one accept that, despite the strong and substantial ground for the case being made for the withdrawal of the motion, Mr. Speaker, you have no discretion on the matter. I draw your attention to what the Lord President told the House yesterday. He said:
what we are doing is following exactly the procedures which have always been followed by the House by which the decisions of the Business Committee are reported to the House."—[Official Report, 24th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1184.]
On the basis of that he declined to give any advance indication yesterday of what was going on today.
I accept that you are bound now, Mr. Speaker, to put the Question, but the House is not bound to pass the Question and the House should take into account what can only be called skulduggery or stupidity—and my right hon. Friends are not stupid. The House is bound to take that into account in deciding whether to pass this monstrous motion.

Mr. Pym: I fully appreciate the obligation upon you, Mr. Speaker, to put the Question, but if on the basis of the case that I have made the motion is not in order, the Standing Order would not apply. I do not see how you can apply the Standing Order to a motion, Mr. Speaker, if that motion is not in order for one reason or another.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker. I said yesterday that we were following the procedures that have always been followed in these matters. That was correct, and I think that anyone who considers the facts will understand that I was referring to the way in which the proceedings of the Business Committee are presented to the House. We have followed precisely the way in which that has been done on previous occasions. It was to that that I was referring, and I believe that I was correct in saying so.
Further—[Interruption.] What I am about to say may assist the House in dealing with the matter. As for the proposals that we took to the Business Committee, which were to be reported to the House under these procedures, we had come forward with those proposals to the Committee in response to proposals and suggestions—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are on a point of order."] If hon. Members will permit me, I am on the point of order. I hope that I shall be able to assist the House. We were responding to requests and representations—

Hon. Members: You are on a point of order.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Give him a chance.

Mr. Foot: I am on a point of order. We were responding to requests that had been made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall not discuss the motion that is before the House. If the Leader of the House wishes to add to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), he is in order to do so.

Mr. Foot: I was indicating to the House, Mr. Speaker, because there have been misleading statements about the matter, that we were responding to representations that had been made.
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I repudiate any charges that he makes about skulduggery. If it assists the House for me not to move the motion but to proceed on the basis of the previous arrangement of the timetable, I am ready to do so. I am quite ready


to do so, although I hope that the House will understand that the provisions that we have made under our proposals for considerably longer discussions on some of the matters that have previously been raised will thereby be lost. However, if the House desires that we should not move the motion, I am prepared to take that course.
I hope that the whole House will join in repudiating any charges of skulduggery against what we did. Anyone who has followed the proceedings at all will know the truth of what I have said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman not moving the motion?

Mr. Foot: No, I am not.

Mr. Terence Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the proceedings both yesterday and today a great deal of time has been taken out of the time that would otherwise be available for debate on the Scotland Bill on points of order resulting from the Lord President's action. The right hon. Gentleman now proposes not to do what he originally intended, but the time has still been wasted. Would you, Mr. Speaker, be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment which would make allowance for the time that has been taken up by the Lord President's manoeuvring?

Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to do that.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th January].

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Sir Myer—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. In the light of the decision that has just been taken by the House, I inform the Committee that the Chairman of Ways and Means' provisional list of amendments posted today stands. Of course, the lines marking 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. should be disregarded. Mr. Buchan, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Buchan: In view of the decision that has been taken, Sir Myer, is it in order for me to seek your guidance on some of the later amendments? Those later amendments include one matter which, for many hon. Members, is a make or break issue. May I, through you, Sir Myer, ask the Lord President whether further time will be given so that the whole question of the referendum may be discussed, if not now, on an extra day on Report?

The First Deputy Chairman: We are on the Committee stage now. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I think that the Committee should realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is the Member whose amendments lose out as a result of the decision taken by the House. Those of us who are following this matter closely are aware of that problem. There is a perfectly easy way by which it can be dealt with. The Government were prepared to use a little time from the new clauses time next week to benefit my hon. Friend's amendments and also the time after 10 o'clock tonight. It would still be possible to do that without prejudice to the arrangements made for today. I should like to put that matter on record.

The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that we had lost a considerable amount of time already. The guillotine falls tonight at 11 o'clock as a result of what has been decided by the House. I hope that we may now proceed to discuss the Bill.

Clause 81

COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 627, in page 37, line 32, after 'Parliament', insert
'together with a statement setting out the answers given in the referendum held pursuant to section 82 of this Act in each legion and islands area, and the percentage of those eligible to vote who have voted in each region and islands area, as well as the corresponding details for the whole of Scotland'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 628, in page 37, line 33, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 35.
No. 629, in page 37, line 35, at end insert—
'(5) Any resolution approving the draft laid under subsection (4) of this section shall have no effect for the purposes of that subsection unless it includes a statement that the House approves the draft having regard to the results of the referendum as set out in the statement laid before Parliament under subsection (4) of this section.'
No. 625, in Clause 82, page 38, line 3, at end insert—
'(3) If a resolution under section 81(4) of this Act has been moved in each House of Parliament, but has not been passed, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of this Act.'
No. 626, in page 38, line 5, leave out from 'House' to 'Her' in line 7.

Mr. Pym: It is undoubtedly a matter of grave anxiety to the Committee that we should start one hour and 20 minutes late on a guillotine day when we are coming to a very important part of the Bill.
The Committee will be aware that the referendum was forced on the Government originally because the House of Commons as a whole, regardless of whether Members were for or against devolution, was not happy with the

scheme proposed by the Government. Originally there was no referendum provision at all in the Scotland and Wales Bill. That provision was introduced on Second Reading in the form of a new clause making it a mandatory referendum. Subsequently, after more pressure and argument from both sides of the House, the Government decided to change yet again and to move to a consultative referendum. I think that they were right to do that.
Amendment No. 627 and the amendments linked with it cover two substantive issues, each of which would be worth quite a substantial speech. However, I shall be brief.
Amendments Nos. 627 and 629 emphasise the consultative nature of the referendum. Later this afternoon, I hope, we shall come to the amendments dealing with particular percentages of majorities and of the poll. There are many advantages and disadvantages, to which we shall come.
The Committee will wish to and, indeed, must take account of all the circumstances surrounding the referendum and the decisions reached. Therefore, it is vital that a full statement of the referendum results be presented to the Committee. That is what the amendment asks for.
Moreover, the amendment asks for the results to be on the basis of region and Island areas. I am sure that the Committee will wish to take into account and to reflect upon the spread of voting in Scotland. I am certain that Parliament will want to consider the position that might result from the possibility that the central belt of Scotland votes heavily for the Bill and the rest of Scotland votes decisively against it.
If there were an overall majority in favour of the Bill, would Parliament be prepared to accept that verdict? I think that it would very much depend on the circumstances and on what the exact figures were. It is questionable whether Members would wish immediately to jump to the conclusion that they should accept a straightforward majority verdict. Therefore, it is important that a proper and full statement of all the facts and figures relating to the referendum should be presented to Parliament.
I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will not simply say that the amendment is unnecessary, that the referendum is already consultative and that no further words of that kind need to be added. If that is all he proposes to say about the matter, apart from any minor drafting amendments that he may wish to suggest, that is no reason for not including the amendment. I think that it is important at this stage to have an amendment that underlines and underwrites the essentially consultative and advisory nature of the referendum.
Amendments Nos. 628 and 626 relate to the role of the House of Lords. One of the most fantastic omissions from the Committee stage of the debate so far has been the failure to provide time for a discussion on what is proposed in Clause 74 in relation to the House of Lords. It is a profound alteration to our constitution and to the workings of Parliament. Yet we have not had one word of debate on the matter.
I do not want to dwell at length upon this referendum clause. However, I am sure that it is right to draw the attention of the Committee to it. Plainly it is of exceptional constitutional importance.
What Clause 74 and Clauses 81 and 82 in part seek to do is to put another place in a position of irrelevance—incompetence—in relation to the parliamentary processes that flow from the Bill. The Minister smiles, but that is what is being done. The other place is being removed from all responsibility for the parliamentary processes that flow from the Bill, particularly the referendum.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing—I hope he is not—that the non-elected House of Lords should have the opportunity or right to overrule the referendum of the people?

Mr. Pym: I strongly believe that Parliament as a whole should go through the proper, normal parliamentary processes in considering what action should or should not be taken as a result of a referendum.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, instead of the

procedure in the Bill, after a referendum result has been obtained and a resolution of the House of Commons has been passed to implement the Bill, the view of the House of Lords, should it come to a different conclusion, should prevail over the view proclaimed by the House of Commons?

Mr. Pym: No doubt the Minister in reply will explain why, in New Clause 40 in the Scotland and Wales Bill, there was no suggestion of excluding the House of Lords in any way whatever, whereas in this Bill there is provision to enable the House of Commons by two votes to do whatever it wishes regardless of whether the other place takes any action. I do not think that is a correct, proper or necessary procedure. On the day that we are to debate the referendum I do not want to dwell upon this, although in many ways it is more important than the referendum.
5.0 p.m.
I have said what I want to say, and I have been brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. The amendments are important because they emphasise and underline the consultative nature of the referendum and the procedure in Parliament that will follow. I hope that the Government will accept them.

Mr. J. Grimond: I simply wish to have it confirmed that it is the Government's intention that the referendum will be carried out in the same manner as the referendum on our entry into the EEC. Will the referendum be carried out on a region and Islands basis, and will each result be announced separately?

Mr. John Smith: I can deal immediately with the question of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The Government's view is that the results should be announced separately for each region and Islands area. That was the procedure for the referendum on the EEC. As hon. Members will have noted, we are following closely the rules for the referendum on the EEC. Our opinion is—whatever hon. Members' views were about the result of the previous referendum—that it is desirable to follow the same rules since there was little dispute about the arrangements for that referendum.
The amendments deal with two matters. Amendment No. 627 ensures that the first commencement order is put before Parliament together with a statement setting out the answers given in the referendum in each region and Islands area and the percentage of those eligible to vote who vote in each area. That amendment is unnecessary for the reason that I gave in my reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
It is our intention that the results of the referendum shall be announced separately for each region and Islands area. This information will be readily available to the public and to the House of Commons. The Government are prepared to consider including in the announcement details of the total electorate for each region and Islands area and to place a copy of the announcement in the Library of the House.
The second matter raises the question which we were unable to debate on Clause 74. It deals with the rôle of the House of Lords so far as the commencement order is concerned. The Government have arrived at the view that, under the operation of Clause 74, if the House of Commons approves the implementation of devolution following the referendum and then the motion goes to the House of Lords and it reaches a different conclusion, the House of Commons can overrule the House of Lords' decision.
We can either leave the clause unamended or we can cut out the Lords from the whole procedure. We have decided on this method. We feel that this is a sensible way of dealing with the matter, and I shall resist the amendment.

Mr. Pym: I should have preferred to press this amendment to a Division and to have had a more substantial debate, but, in view of the time, I shall not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide. I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, particularly since it would stress the importance of the consultative nature of the referendum.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

REFERENDUM

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 229, in page 37, line 37, after "a", insert "United Kingdom".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may discuss the following Amendments:
No. 231, in Schedule 17, page 88, line 14, leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom".
No. 232, in Schedule 17, page 88, line 17, leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom".

Mr. Hamilton: The amendments are designed to make the referendum a United Kingdom referendum rather than purely Scottish. I shall try to anticipate what might be the arguments against this proposition.
No doubt it will be said that a United Kingdom referendum would be more costly and take longer to arrange, that the legislation does not involve the rest of the United Kingdom anyhow and, more importantly, from the Government's view, that to extend the referendum in this way would ensure the defeat of the legislation. There is no doubt that English votes would be overwhelmingly against any such fundamental upheaval in the constitutional machinery of the United Kingdom. My belief is that the majority of working people in England would be opposed to this legislation. Indeed, if there were a free vote in the House of Commons the majority of Members would be against it.
The argument about cost is trivial. One does not niggle about costs when basic principles are involved. The fact that the Government see fit to conduct an exclusive referendum emphasises the suspicion of the English regions that the Government feel that there is something peculiarly and exclusively Scottish about the problem of devolution and that it does not concern the English regions. To make matters worse, the Government are ensuring that United Kingdom taxpayers will foot the bill for an exclusively Scottish measure.
The time factor argument is equally weak, if it is an argument at all. Both the arguments about time and cost, if there is any strength in them at all, could be answered by a decision to hold the referendum on the same day as a General Election, perhaps some time in the spring of 1979 or after the April 1979 Budget. In those circumstances, there would be a minimum of additional cost and delay.
The third argument is the most untenable of all. It is that these matters do not involve the United Kingdom as a whole. At best it is patently absurd and at worst it is blatant dishonesty. It is a facetious argument.
There is a great deal of concern about this in England. There is violent opposition to it in Labour circles, particularly in North-East and North-West England. In the North-East the Government have sought to bribe support from hon. Members and from outside, although North-East Members are fundamentally opposed to it. The same applies to the North-West. Whatever statistics one uses for unemployment or social deprivation, there is evidence to suggest that the English regions are at least in as bad a plight as certain areas north of the border. Even in London the streets are not paved with gold, although the impression is created north of the border that everything in London is marvellous. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that in his city there is a deprivation which is at least as great in pockets as the worst deprivation in Scotland.
Big and small companies with headquarters in London and elsewhere are intimately affected by what happens to this legislation. Whether we like it or not, they provide the jobs and few of these firms want this legislation. I have seen a letter signed by an SNP official in Fife which says to an oil company which has engaged in a £200 million investment on the Firth of Forth " We warn you that whatever you do, an independent Scottish Assembly will not accept international commitments entered into by a United Kingdom Government." The SNP is saying that it will renounce all of those. That is why no one in England or Scotland can pretend that that kind of consideration does not affect

people in England as much as it affects people in Scotland.
I will quote at length on some other occasion from the great correspondence there has been on that matter. It was raised by one of my hon. Friends at the Scottish Office. Immediately there was a denunciation or withdrawal of it by a member of the SNP. The letter was quoted and it stated that there would be civil disobedience and, presumably, the blowing-up of pipelines by the SNP. That was implied in that letter, and it is no good saying after that that its contents are withdrawn or renounced. By then the damage is done.
The author of that letter wrote it on official SNP paper with the official approval of the party. It was subsequently withdrawn, but we know that that kind of action cannot and does not go unnoticed south of the border. Therefore, whatever happens in the Scottish context must affect—I believe adversely—people south of the border.
I believe that the case for having a United Kingdom referendum, in spite of the minor difficulties which might be put in its way, is overwhelming. I ask the Committee to support the amendment. If necessary, I shall force it to a vote.

Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I wish to raise this point now before the debate develops in order not to interrupt the flow of the debate. I have written to the Chairman of Ways and Means concerning Amendments Nos. 633, 634, 635 and 636—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have seen the letter that the hon. Member has written. The Chairman of Ways and Means has said that he will be looking into the suggestions made in it. I think, therefore, that we should wait until he has had an opportunity to decide what to do about it.

Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to you, Sir Myer, for saying that and to the Chairman of the Ways and Means for considering the matter. Presumably, if any change is contemplated it will have to be made before the conclusion of the debate on this amendment. Is that the case?

The First Deputy Chairman: I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means is fully aware of the limitations and the urgency with which his consideration must take place.

Mr. John Stokes: I wish to support the amendment. Having differed from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on profound matters in the past, I am happy to agree with him on this. The point which the Committee must stand by is that the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have seen that day by day in our debates in this Committee.
Just to hold a referendum in Scotland on this vital new constitutional change—the first affecting the constitution of the Untied Kingdom since the Act of Union in 1707—would be an outrage and a most dangerous precedent. Certainly it would cause the utmost bitterness in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
For those reasons, I wholeheartedly support the amendment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The English have some constitutional rights to be consulted. One reason is that the Bill undoubtedly affects the government of England and the interests of English taxpayers almost as much as it affects those of Scotland. However, it also affects those Scots of either the first generation or of subsequent generations who have come to work and live in England. I am under no illusions about how difficult—perhaps impossible—it is for those Scots who have come south of the border to earn their bread and butter to be consulted. However, there should at least be some Government passing reference to the large number of letters some of us have received from Scots in England asking to be consulted. I know of no other opportunity on which to ask this question.
All this underlines once again the unsatisfactory nature of the whole ethnic argument—the idea that we talk about Scots and English when more and more as never before people are becoming intermingled. I reckon that I now represent thousands of English people in West Lothian. My hon. Friends, in their various constituencies, find the same.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I should like to support the amendment. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is right to keep reminding us that this is a United Kingdom matter. If there is any doubt about it let us consider Clause 1. It states very clearly that the provisions of the Bill would
not affect the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament to make laws for the United Kingdom or any part of it.
Therefore the referendum must be taken for the Kingdom as a whole. I understand that the referendum is a new departure in our affairs, and this will be only the second we have had, but Clause 1 makes it clear that the Bill specifically covers the whole Kingdom.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member might reflect that relying too much on Clause 1 to assist his argument would be unwise since he voted against it.

Mr. Price: I am speaking of the Government's intentions, which, irrespective of what Parliament has done, are reflected in the Bill. It is a United Kingdom Bill. In the debate on Clause 1 we all agreed that this was a United Kingdom matter. Therefore any referendum which is held on the subsequent Act, the Bill having passed through both Houses of Parliament must be a matter for all the people of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State might argue that that is not the case because his proposals are so minor that they come in the same category as the local drinking hours options in Wales. There was a case there for restricting the rise on the Welsh option to the Welsh. None of us argued that that was a United Kingdom matter and, therefore, should have been the subject of a United Kingdom referendum. I am sure that the Minister of State will not argue that his proposals come into that class.

Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Member think that the Northern Ireland border poll should have been carried out on the basis of the whole of the United Kingdom, and that it was wrong to confine it to the electors of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Price: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) could deploy a strong argument to show that it was wrong to do it that


way. Of course, the Ulster border poll was not simply an internal United Kingdom referendum. It was more in the nature of a plebiscite about whether a particular piece of land and its people belong to one country or another. Therefore plebiscites are limited to those in the border areas concerned. That is why the Northern Ireland poll was of a different nature from that of the referendum in this Bill.
There is no suggestion in the Bill that this issue concerns the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is an internal arrangement of development for Scotland which affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
Another reason is that the United Kingdom taxpayer is involved throughout. If at an earlier stage of the Bill the Government had followed the argument that the devolution of law making should be followed by the devolution of taxation there might have been an argument for restricting the referendum only to the people of Scotland who would come under the new régime. But that argument did not appeal to the Government. They say that this Parliament and the central Government of the United Kingdom must retain the taxing powers, and, therefore, all of us are involved in the New Scottish proposals.
There can be no question, therefore, but that all United Kingdom voters are involved in these decisions. As we all know, for many years the Scottish people have received, per head of population, a higher amount of public expenditure than the people in England. Secretaries of State over a long period have quoted figures to this effect in answer to Questions. As of now, the Scottish voter is getting more out of the Imperial Exchequer than the English voter is getting. Under the proposals it is very likely that the English voters will have to pay even more in the future. That takes a good deal of explaining away, but no one can deny that English voters have a vested interest in these decisions about Scotland.
There is also the question of parliamentary representation. It will be within the knowledge of everyone here that on a purely statistical basis Scotland is overrepresented in the House. If the Bill be-

comes an Act we shall face all the problems of different classes of Member about which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is continually reminding us. The position of Scottish Members here will become very difficult and ambivalent. Scotland will then be even more grossly over-represented than it is today. This also must be a matter of deep concern to the English electorate.
I believe that these are very convicing reasons for arguing that it is right that the referendum should be held over the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that, on all sides, we shall support the hon. Member for Fife, Central.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). When we are in agreement it must mean that what we agree about should commend itself to the Committee.
It is clear that the creation of an Assembly will affect not only people in Scotland but people in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are several aspects to be considered. First, there is the special advantage that people in industry in Scotland will have as a result of the Assembly being able to exert pressure on the Government, and perhaps in that way getting industry directed to Scotland. These fears have already been expressed by people coming from the remoter parts of England, particularly Northumberland. That is the first reason why people in the rest of the United Kingdom are affected.
Then there is the curious position that will arise, if the Bill becomes law—I hope it will not—in regard to the Scottish Members of Parliament. This is a matter which is bound to affect people in England, and therefore they ought to be able to express a view on it through a referendum.
Next, there is the fact that there are many people who live in England purely for business reasons, and therefore have a temporary home here but whose spiritual home is in Scotland. We have the curious position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will not be able to express an opinion in the referendum because, purely for temporary reasons, he does not have a home in Scotland. No one could be more Scottish than the right


hon. Gentleman. This seems to be a further reason why people in the rest of the United Kingdom should be allowed to vote.
There is also the point which has been made about the terrible tendency to pretend that Britain is two countries. It is as though we were playing a perpetual football match between the English and the Scots. It makes me utterly sick. [Interruption.] I may say that each time Scotland gets beaten I am almost jolly pleased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that because in my opinion these endless international football matches do not do any good at all for international relations. They stir things up. No one would like to be living in an area anywhere near a football match taking place between England and Scotland. Anyone who does not admit that is a hypocrite. [Interruption.]

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Just a moment, or the referee will have to bring out the yellow card. It is not in order to discuss rugby or football.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) can shout for Scotland with the best of us.

Mr. Galbraith: When I made my last remark I was beginning to get a little worked up. I am a Scotsman through and through, without an ounce of foreign blood in my veins, and with nothing except Scottish blood in my family for 800 years. I naturally wish my own country to win, but I dislike very much the tendency to pretend that Britain is not one country. It is a united country, and the great constitutional change which the Bill proposes is one that should be determined on a British basis and not on an isolated Scottish basis.

Mr. Terence Higgins: We have already, as the result of the despicable action taken by the Leader of the House, lost a great deal of time, and therefore I shall speak only briefly on the amendment.
I find myself in some difficulty because I am totally opposed to the idea of a referendum, and I hope to express that view later in the debate on the clause,

but I may have no opportunity to do so because of the very severe restriction of time.
Being totally opposed to the whole idea of a referendum, I find difficulty in deciding whether I ought to support an amendment which would seek to make the position slightly less objectionable. On balance, I have come to the view that I should support it. It is really quite bizarre to suggest that a referendum should be held, which clearly affects very significantly my own constituents and people in other English constituencies, and at the same time to tell them that they are to express no view on whether they support the Government's proposal. It seems to me that that must be totally wrong.
I cannot be sure of defeating the Government on the main issue of the referendum, although I hope that, in voting on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", I shall be joined by others who also feel that we have not had proper time for the discussion of these matters.
In all the circumstances, I think that my right course of action is to support the amendment if it is pressed to a Division, although that will take further time.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Coming from Merseyside, as I do, I can say that we are very happy to have Kenny Dalglish playing football for Liverpool. We were also very happy to have Bill Shankly as the manager of the Liverpool football team. They are fine men and good Scotsmen, but they are also very good Merseysiders, and I feel that this sums up the whole question facing our country.
I do not particularly like referendums, but I think that there is a very good argument for this one, and I shall certainly support the amendment.

Mr. Peter Emery: I have not taken much part in the debates on the Bill, but the views that I expressed on the Scotland and Wales Bill were fairly strong. Indeed, I put down an amendment to that Bill which was more or less the same as the one moved today by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I shall be brief, because we are naturally trying to make progress.
If the Minister is arguing, as he does strongly, that the Bill will not cause the break-up of the United Kingdom, he must surely accept that that is a subjective judgment on his part. It happens to be my judgment that it will cause the break-up of the United Kingdom. That being so, should not everyone in the United Kingdom have the right to vote on the matter?
The Bill sets out to be one affecting the United Kingdom, and it seems to me to be entirely incorrect that the Government should limit the decision to Scotland and not allow all the people within the United Kingdom to vote on it. One could go on expanding this argument. The feeling in the South-West that they should have a right on this decision is very considerable. I shall not expand. My point is made quite clearly in what I said. I urge the Government, if they speak as the Government of the United Kingdom, to ensure that the amendment is allowed to go through.

5.30 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), I have not tried to measure the amount of Scottish blood in my veins. So I hope that the Committee will not object to my speaking on the amendment.
It is amazing that we in the Committee should find ourselves suddenly accepting the principle of referendums when it is a principle against which many hon. Members have spoken previously. Beyond that, we are trying to define the extent of any referendum which should be held within any area of the United Kingdom. Moreover, when Conservative Members say that they will make lengthy speeches on the amendments and that they wish to make rapid progress, this is thought of very ill by Members such as myself, who have to listen to them virtually filibustering their way through—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—and preventing our talking on very important amendments. Last night we spent an hour and a half during which only four members of the Conservative Party were present, two of them being Front Bench Members, with three Scottish National Party Members, two Liberal Members and seven Government Members.
At the end of that debate the Conservative Party had the effrontery to withdraw the amendment and not push it to a vote perhaps because the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was addressing a meeting of the NFU and many of the Conservative Party Back-Bench Members were guests. This showed the kind of interest that the Conservative Party has in the Bill.
Turning to some of the points raised by other hon. Members, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) tried to say that in asking for a referendum to be held only in Scotland on the Scotland Bill and only in Wales presumably on the Wales Bill, we were somehow trying to put forward an ethnic argument. He pointed out that in his constituency of West Lothian many people were not Scots. He is not alone in having people who are not Scottish in his constituency. Many people in my constituency are not of Scottish origin.
On a question affecting Scotland the SNP is asking for a process of identification of the people with the problems of the country in which they live. For us in the SNP the definition of a Scotsman is an individual who lives and works in Scotland, who recognises the problems of Scotland and is prepared to alter that situation. This is why many people who have come to live in Scotland from South of the border are supporters of the SNP.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does that mean that, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, if the SNP had its own way people such as Kenny Dalglish would not be allowed to play in Scotland?

Mrs. Bain: It is a process of democracy that one can favour whichever football team one wants. I am sure that Kenny Dalglish, rather like Ally MacLeod, would be taken aback by what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said earlier. Another point which arose in the discussion was that English taxpayers would be asked to finance a Scottish Assembly. Why is it that the protests are loudest from the people who wholeheartedly voted against logical amendments to give the Scottish Assembly the right to run its own affairs and to look after its own problems?
The Conservative Party and many Back-Bench Labour Members are being intellectually dishonest in the stance they are taking. Nowhere was this more true in earlier points raised by the hon. Member for Hillhead, who said that he hoped the Scotland Bill would not be passed. I refer also to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who said that he did not believe in referendums but thought that there was a good case for—

Mr. Heffer: I wish that the hon. Lady would listen to what was said by hon. Members. I said that I did not particularly agree with referendums but thought that we ought to support this. I have supported referendums in the past and will continue to do so in future, but I do not make it a matter of principle.

Mrs. Bain: The hon. Member for Walton, being a close friend of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), endorsed the view put forward by the letter in The Times of 4th November 1975 on the basis that he felt that the inclusion of a referendum in the debate on the Scotland Bill would mean that the SNP would be dished. I am sure that this would cause a great deal of glee to the hon. Member for Walton if that were the case.

Mr. Heffer: Absolutely.

Mrs. Bain: Another Conservative Member complained about the overrepresentation of Scots Members at Westminster.
Looking at it on a proportional basis, it is a view with which I agree. Statistically, no one can argue with it. That is why it is more logical in discussing the principle of referendums to include the possibility of having an independence option made available to the Scottish people. In an independence situation, there would be no Scottish Members at Westminster. There would be a tier of government at local level, Scottish level and at European level. That would be a much more logical system of government than that proposed in the Bill.
None the less, it is the Conservative Party which most steadfastly sets its face against the possibility of extending the principle of devolution. We in the Scottish National Party accept devolution merely as a step towards independence.

Mr. Fairbairn: That is why the SNP is dishonest.

Mrs. Bain: There is nothing dishonest in holding a view to which we have adhered throughout our existence as a party. The Conservative Party has turned somersault so frequently that Conservative Members must all be suffering from slipped discs.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that he tried to anticipate the arguments which would be used against the amendments by presumably members of the SNP and those members of the Government who firmly believe in devolution. First, he said that there was a great deal of interest in England in the question of devolution for Scotland. I am afraid that the hon. Member has not paid a great deal of attention to much of what has been said in the House of Commons during the various debates over the last three years on this important principle.
During the progress of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said:
as far as I am aware, my constituents could not care less about the Bill … there is no interest on Merseyside in the contents of the Bill and no demand that the people there should have a voice in the referendums … people have said to me if that is what the Scots and the Welsh want, let them get on with it'".—[Official Report, 16th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 602.]
If the hon. Member for Fife, Central is trying to tell us that there is a great deal of extended interest in England since the demise of the Scotland and Wales Bill and since the presentation of this one, he will have to come forward with more positive arguments than those that he has produced today.
The only particularly relevant argument we have had in the past—I understand, though I have not had any verification—is that the Leader of the House is being sued under the Race Relations Act by someone south of the border who feels that she is being neglected by the present Parliament because of the preoccupation of the Leader of the House with Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Heffer: Has it never crossed the hon. Lady's mind that it might well be that the English people are not interested


because they do not understand the whole concept of the splitting off of Scotland and Wales? Is she also aware that if this goes on they may well want a referendum to decide to split away themselves from Scotland and Wales? That might be a turn-up for the book. They might decide that we do not want anything to do with Scotland.

Mrs. Bain: If this were to be the case, I should have no objection to it, as someone believing in the concept of democracy. If the English people want to change the constitution within which they live, that is their business. The SNP is saying that the people of Scotland—and Wales, for that matter—have already expressed a desire to change the constitution of the United Kingdom and, through the natural processes of democracy—they did at the last election—support parties which were committed to one degree of devolution after the other, including the party of the hon. Member for Walton, which had this as part of its election manifesto as the Labour Party fought on it north of the border.
It is not my job to try to solve the internal problems of the Labour Party as they were outlined by the hon. Member for Fife, Central when he spoke about the difficulties within Labour circles of coming to a conclusion on the matter.
I suggest that the concept of the referendum as it is being put forward by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and, presumably, by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), is a wrecking attitude towards the concept of devolution because those hon. Members felt that they were not adequately consulted by their own party.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady made an interesting statement about her belief in democracy. She said that if the people of England want to decide, let them decide; if the people of Scotland want to decide, let them decide; and if the people of Wales want to decide, let them decide. What are her party's views about the people of the Shetland Islands?

Mrs. Bain: It is always interesting that people try to introduce the question of the Shetland Islands as a disrupting influ-

ence in the debate. On the question of devolution, the people of the Shetland Islands and, indeed, of the Orkney Islands, are very flattered by the sudden interest expressed in this place in their future. The SNP attitude has been clear for over 10 years, namely, that we do not wish to see a Westminster system of centralised government transferred to Edinburgh, and that there should be a degree of autonomy awarded to the people of the Shetlands and Orkneys should they wish for that. Perhaps if we had had that kind of consideration from Westminster and the political parties who have presided at Westminster over the centuries, we should not have the present situation.

Mr. Galbraith: That is not an answer to my question.

Mrs. Bain: The hon. Member for Fife, Central referred to the problems of the regions of England. I have every sympathy with those who suffer from unemployment, bad housing and so on, wherever they exist within the United Kingdom and throughout Europe, and, indeed, throughout the world. As a nationalist, I am fundamentally an internatonalist. I believe that to be an internationalist one must have respect for one's own country and its institutions before one can believe in the concept of internationalism.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Fife, Central to try to make out that we have some kind of racist attitude towards people south of the border who have problems. It is the type of inverted racialism which is likely to cause the problems which he claims he wishes to solve.
The hon. Member says that the people of Scotland have a misguided idea that the pavements of London are paved with gold. I say categorically that the people of Scotland are under no such illusion, because they are aware of the problems elsewhere. They are also acutely aware of the statistics published by the hon. Member's own Government, which indicate that, although there are Dockets of deprivation everywhere throughout the United Kingdom, there is a higher concentration of them in West Central Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom, in that 97½ per cent. of the worst areas of urban deprivation lie in


West Central Scotland, which the hon. Member's party has dominated for a century in Glasgow and for which it must bear a certain amount of responsibility—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is straying wide of the subject matter under discussion.

Mrs. Bain: I am merely answering points put by the hon. Member for Fife, Central in moving the amendment, Sir Myer. I am just correcting the hon. Member on the statistical evidence on deprivation and poverty.
I oppose the amendment not because I do not have any wish for the people who are Scots south of the border to have any say in what is happening in Scotland. However, I should like to point out that the matters being devolved to Scotland under the Bill, at the stage at which it now stands, do not affect people south of the border. Education and health are already matters which have been administratively devolved to Scotland for a long time, so why should there suddenly be a need to consult people south of the border?
Beyond that, many people south of the border are neither acquainted with nor interested in many of the issues. They can hardly be relied upon to give a balanced judgment. Some of the speeches from hon. Members who represent constituencies south of the border show a distinct lack of knowledge of Scottish institutions and the Scottish way of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "So does the hon. Lady."] They would hardly give a balanced view to their constituents on the matter.
Beyond that, no one has asked that the English or the British should have the right to vote in a referendum on whether any of the other colonies of Britain should be given independence.
5.45 p.m.
Finally, I say that the people who wish the referendum to be extended to Scots living south of the border will be causing acrimony. If the English say "No" and the Scots and the Welsh say "Yes", we shall have acrimony. We of the SNP wish to avoid that because we wish to see the constituent nations of the United Kingdom working together as neighbours in harmony and not being forced into a

situation that is being deliberately sought by Labour and Conservative Members of false division within the United Kingdom which need never exist in the first place.
Reducing this argument to the absurd level, we should have to extend the referendum to the whole of the Commonwealth, because there are people from England, from Scotland and from Wales living in every corner of the world.
I hope that all hon. Members who claim to have any kind of intelligence or logic will reject the amendment and say that the decision on the kind of devolution and the extent of the devolution that is made available to Scotland must be taken by the Scots themselves. We should prefer it to be taken at a General Election, but we are quite willing to have it taken in a referendum. I hope that the Minister will take on board the possibility of including the independence option in the referendum.

Mr. Fairbairn: I shall be very brief. It is important that, of two of the amendments we are discussing, one is from an hon. Member who is an Englishman sitting for a Scottish seat, and who used to be my Member of Parliament before the boundary change, and one is from a Scotsman sitting for an English seat. The argument is made.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) has just used the argument falsely on the concept that Scotland contains the Scots and England contains the English, and that that is what we are talking about. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an absolutely artificial and historic division of the land of Britain, which now, above that line, has more Englishmen and Irishmen than Scots, and below the line has more Scots than are above the line. Therefore, it is an utterly absurd argument. [Interruption.] Am I a racist? I do not know whether that is a parliamentary term. I am a proud patriot and a proud Scotsman. I do not pretend to make that the interest of those north of the line who are British subjects as compared with those who live south of it. Those who live south of it are just as entitled to a vote as to how the decision on arrangements that affect both should be decided.
If we were deciding on the independence of Fife, it might be that if we had


a Bangla-Fife party, it would wish to secede. I doubt whether the hon. Lady's party would grant that to whatever race happened to live in the county of Fife. But it is not a decision between races who live in different countries. It is an arbitrary decision on a historical line about people who happen to live on one side of it or the other and who happen to belong to all the races or ethnic groups who have ever made up the population. It is wrong that some of them who think that they may benefit should be allowed to vote and that some who think that they may lose should not be allowed to vote. It would be equally wrong if only those who thought that they may lose on one side of the line could vote, and those who thought that they may lose or gain on the other side should not be entitled to vote.
I am entirely in sympathy with and behind the amendment.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: If I had been called to speak before the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), perhaps I would have said that this has been one of the most brisk and relevant debates that we have had in the whole Committee stage. I include in that comment my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
Frankly, I am glad to have been called to speak after the hon. Lady. It is precisely the kind of carping speech that we have heard from her that reduces what might otherwise be a much more constructive element in these debates. I say just two things to the hon. Lady. It makes it very difficult for many of the rest of us that she and her party should arrogate to themselves the belief that they speak for the people of Scotland as a whole.
Many hon. Members representing Scotland and Scottish constituents have lived, worked and spent all their lives in Scotland. They intend to go on doing so. We do not arrogate to ourselves the right to speak for every person in Scotland. We seek to represent the views of the people whom we represent and amongst whom we work and live. It is that kind of arrogant attitude which inspires in other parts of the United Kingdom some of

those feelings which we would rather not have in Scotland in the first place.
I would also say to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East that we would have a more constructive debate—that is what she was calling for—if she and her party adopted a more constructive attitude towards the subject before the Committee. What inspires some of the things that she does not like is the fact that she and her party approach the Bill as a stepping-stone towards separation and independence. If she and her party—as I and others do—regarded the Bill as a genuine measure of devolution, she would find a quite different attitude on the part of many people in many different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Bain: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made a constructive approach to this subject which is totally different from the approach of the Conservative Party as a whole. Does he accept that the SNP has tabled several interesting and constructive amendments which have been debated and that we have put forward only one speaker per amendment in order to facilitate the Bill through this guillotined stage? That is in amazing contradiction to what the Conservative Party has done. The Conservative Party has put in the usual Back Bench backwoodsmen who are in no way interested in the concept of devolution for Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The only thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. If that were the case, we might have a more constructive debate.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not often that I come to the aid of the SNP. However, is not the hon. Gentleman being a little woolly? After all, the SNP is about independence. It is very unreal to think that somehow or another the SNP will fall in line with the views of the hon. Gentleman—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that we are going a little wide of the subject under discussion—namely, the question of extending the referendum to the United Kingdom, and not the politics of the SNP.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am simply commenting, Sir Myer, on the previous speech which you allowed to be in order.


However, I intend to leave that matter and return strictly to the amendment.
If it were simply a question of cost or length of time, I might have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). But while I appreciate what motivates the amendment, I appreciated it even more after I had listened to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. I know that some of my hon. Friends will support the amendment because their purpose is to keep the United Kingdom united. That is a purpose which I fully support and one in which I fully believe.
However, I want to pose a question to hon. Members who wish to support the amendment. Even if we were to have a referendum which covered the whole of the United Kingdom and a majority of the people in Scotland wanted independence, would the effect of holding a referendum in the United Kingdom as a whole make separation or independence any less likely as a result? It is in those terms that I should like to debate this matter, and it is in those terms that I feel that the amendment might be wrong.
I put this question in purely practical terms, and I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will answer it. In principle, I am against referendums because I believe that they usurp our parliamentary democracy. If, however, we were to have a referendum covering the whole of the United Kingdom, what would be the situation if there were a "Yes" vote in Scotland and a "No" vote in England? In such a situation, would we go ahead with setting up the Assembly in accordance with the Bill, or would we allow the majority of the rest of the United Kingdom to prevent the Assembly coming into effect?
If those circumstances were to arise, as is quite possible, I believe that we should be contributing more to the break-up of the United Kingdom than by having a referendum, as in the Bill, which applies to Scotland alone.
For those reasons, I believe that the amendment is wrong. First, because of the purely practical consequences of what is being proposed, we should get into a very untenable situation, which by itself would contribute more to the break-up of the United Kingdom than would the Bill as it stands. Quite apart

from that, I believe that the Bill is a measure of devolution rather than one of independence and separation. I believe that those who vote in a referendum of this nature should be those who have chosen to work and live in Scotland. I believe that that is correct.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: As an English Member who has not over-detained the Committee, the debates have brought home to me the absurdity and deplorable nature of the divisiveness of the Bill which the Government are trying to pass.
With regard to the amendment, if we were to have a referendum—I do not like referendums—it would make it slightly less divisive and less resented by my constituents if they had some say in what was happening. I represent a Scottish company in which a lot of Scottish-born people work who are dependent on the Scottish economy for their jobs and livelihoods. So, too, do other people in my constituency who work in that company. If they are not to be allowed any say in what happens under this Bill that will add to the divisiveness and resentment, and the feeling that we in this Committee do not represent their views properly.
The absurdity is added to many times over by the fact that my own daughter, born in England, will have a vote in the Scottish referendum if she is still at a Scottish university. That seems to be utterly absurd. I therefore feel that the amendment should be supported, because it goes some way towards reducing the divisive nature of the whole Bill.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The Committee is profoundly obliged to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) because she has allowed it to see two things very clearly. First, she spelt out once again that her party sees opposition to the amendment, and to the Bill as a whole, as a stepping stone to the total separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I wish the Minister of State well during the referendum campaign when he shares a television screen with the hon. Lady. The hon. Lady's companions will be arguing for a total break-up of the United Kingdom on the one hand while on the other the Minister of State will be saying "I am asking for a 'Yes' vote,


too, but I disagree totally with those who are supporting me". That is another reason why the referendum will be chucked out of Scotland as a whole.
I am also obliged to the hon. Lady for again emphasising the real motives that lie behind her party's support of the Bill. The hon. Lady regards anyone who lives in Scotland as being a Scot but also said that there are Scots in England as well. If I were an English Member, I might ask her whether a Scot who lives in England is not also an Englishman by the same argument. Logically, the hon. Lady contradicted herself, but we cannot expect logic, because the hon. Lady's argument is founded not on logic but on emotion. By talking of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, as though they were totally separate peoples and not British citizens, members of this United Kingdom, one country, with one Parliament, the SNP indulges in reprehensible emotions which are founded on the sort of racialist rubbish that divides the United Kingdom. We are grateful to the hon. Lady for making that situation quite clear.
6.0 p.m.
I wish to support the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) totally on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that it would be awkward if the English decided that they did not like devolution. It might be awkward, but they are entitled to tell us their view, and it is up to this Committee to take that view into account.
There are two incontrovertible reasons why we should support the amendment. Indisputably, this is a United Kingdom affair, because the whole of the United Kingdom will pay for this Bill. One cannot logically say that somebody who pays for the Scottish Assembly should have nothing to do with it. If a citizen of this country is to be asked to pay for the Scottish Assembly he has the right to cast his vote whether he wants that Assembly.
Secondly, it is incontrovertible that this referendum should be conducted on a United Kingdom-wide basis, because there are more people who consider themselves British Scots living in that part of the United Kingdom called England than

there are British Scots living in that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland. It is intolerable that people who are British and Scottish, living in England, should not have the right to decide the future of their own part of the United Kingdom. If people from other parts of the United Kingdom, such as the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), are living in Scotland and entitled to decide my future, I do not see why British Scots living here should not have an equal right to decide such matters. Therefore, Scots living north and south of the border must be consulted. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.

Mr. David Crouch: Many strong views have been expressed on Amendment No. 234 tabled by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). He put forward his genuine feelings in recognising that this is a United Kingdom affair and, therefore, should be referred to the United Kingdom people as a whole.
I am glad that we in this United Kingdom Parliament have this opportunity to debate the Scotland Bill. I should not like to see any retraction of that principle. I am glad that I as an Englishman, living in an English constituency, have had the opportunity on a number of occasions in this Committee to express my views.
However, it is wrong for Members of this Committee or for the people of this country to assume that this Bill will produce a distinct economic advantage for the Scottish people. That is not what the Bill is about, but there are many people in England and a great many hon. Members who seem to think that that is what it is about.
It has been said that there are many people who take the view that Scotland might gain considerably from this Bill and that envious eyes are being turned on Scotland. The hon. Member for Fife, Central is seeking through his amendment to refer this matter outside this democratic Parliament to a referendum among the whole United Kingdom electorate. He will say to those people "You will have a chance to exercise your decision in your envy of what you think the Scots will obtain through the passage of the Bill." In effect, he is saying "You English men and women will give this Bill the thumbs


down because you believe that there is some advantage in the Bill to the Scottish people".
That is not how I see the Bill. I have never thought that it would give economic advantage to the Scottish people. It might produce economic advantage if the Scottish people were gaining a little political freedom, of which I am in favour, because by giving a little political freedom one gives strength to people not to separate but to gain strength in greater unity—and by producing that greater unity within the United Kingdom. The Committee knows that I have expressed these views on many occasions, perhaps to the dismay of many hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I believe these things profoundly and sincerely as other hon. Members put forward their views. I wish to allow the Scottish people to have an opportunity to express their opinions.
I am not against a referendum in this case on such a major constitutional measure when views are held so strongly both in Parliament and outside, but we say to the Scottish people "You must decide whether you like what the United Kingdom Parliament has decided is good for you." In other words, we must let the Scottish people decide. Do not let us make the mistake of casting envious eyes on the so-called benefits in this Bill to Scotland.

Mr. Tim Renton: In November 1974 the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke in support of a motion that I moved and that deplored the holding of national referendums, which I considered were in opposition to the principles of parliamentary democracy. My views have not changed—nor, I think, have the hon. Gentleman's. The purpose of his amendment, I take it, is to see that the referendum, if it is ever held, should be as effective as possible. That means that its result should be accepted by the British people as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) thought that the referendum would be a disaster, if ever it were held, if its result were not followed by the people of Scotland or by the people of England.
I wish to make two points in this debate. I believe that the referendum

would be that much more effective if those voting in it were not only those who live in Scotland but those who are native-born Scots and who still have a family home in, and therefore a living connection with, Scotland. I asked the Minister of State on 16th January whether this was practicable, and he told me that he felt that it would be extremely difficult to identify such Scots and to make arrangements for them to vote. The Minister put forward that obstacle, but it is noticeable that Spain in its 1976 general election gave the vote to expatriate Spaniards. A total of 5 million Spaniards were identified and given a chance to register at their nearest consulate and to vote. None the less, the Minister of State said that it would be impossible to identify Scottish expatriates.

Mrs. Bain: rose—

Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady spoke for long enough, and it is time to get on with the debate. I intend to be brief.
Although the Minister dismissed my suggestion on 16th January, I wish to point out that his job was to some extent carried out for him because his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) produced a calculation showing that about 2 million Scots work among the general population of England. Assuming that that is something like the right figure, are the Government suggesting that 2 million Scots who are now working in England should be disenfranchised from the greatest decision that affects the future of their homeland? That surely would be an intolerable situation for those Scots.
If, then, they cannot be identified and if native-born Scots cannot be recognised and given the vote, I believe that there is no question but that the vote must be given to the whole of the United Kingdom in this referendum.
If there is one thing at stake in the referendum it is the Act of Union. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) has made that abundantly plain time and again. I am reminded of the opening remarks of a recent speaker on devolution, who said that he and his wife had always found the act of union perfectly satisfactory. Is it not typical of the SNP that it wishes to change that situation? Members of the SNP are determined to do so, and such a change


would involve every person in the United Kingdom.
There have been benefits to England flowing from economic union with Scotland since 1707. There have been ever greater benefits flowing to Scotland. We can all agree th great benefits have flowed to both countries in free trade and in the stability of the currency. We have had a stable exchange rate between the two countries since the middle of the eighteenth century. That situation would be put at risk following the independence of Scotland that would happen if the SNP MPs have their way following a "Yes" vote in the referendum.
It is for that reason, and not through any love of referendums, that I shall vote for the amendment. The Minister of State has said that a vote cannot be given to expatriate Scots in addition to the Scots living in Scotland, so I believe that the hon. Member for Fife, Central was totally right to bring forward his amendment. I hope that it will be widely supported.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Hon. Members should remember that while unity cannot be enforced, disunity can certainly be fomented. I believe in the desirability of retaining the unity of the United Kingdom and, with many other hon. Members, I believe that it is not incompatible with, but is rather necessary to, the continued acceptability of that Union that there should be effective devolution, which, in this case, means self-government for Scotland within the Union. I am not going to argue whether that is adequate or not, but it is the object of the exercise.
If hon. Members wish to try to pretend that feelings of Scottishness or Englishness do not exist they are being foolish. Such feelings do exist. If they did not, we would have no Bill before us. The emotion exists, and the Bill is about channelling it in a constructive way.
I do not particularly like referendums. That feeling is shared by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but they are, nevertheless, driven to the view that, because of the nature of the whole history of this matter, we must have a referendum. If the objective of a referendum is to emphasise the unity of the United Kingdom, nothing is more likely

to encourage feelings of separatism than a referendu ich produces a "Yes" in Scotland and a "No" in England. We must be politically practical.
The Bill is called the Scotland Bill. It has been introduced because of the political pressure in Scotland. Let us not argue about the rights and wrongs of that. It is a political fact. It has not been introduced because of political pressure in England, and indeed, the bulk of people in England, as has been demonstrated many times in Committee, are fairly uninterested in this matter. I do not blame them for that since it is not a matter that directly concerns them.

Mr. Sproat: They will have to pay for it.

Mr. Johnston: I do not intend to get involved in detailed arguments about payment. There are many sides to that argument and we have been over it many times. I am sure that hon. Members want to complete this part of the Bill.
People living in Scotland have produced the political steam which has led to the introduction of the Bill. If we extend the referendum outside Scotland, there is a possibility, not because of strongly held beliefs, but because of a certain degree of indifference and ignorance—for which I do not blame people in England—that we shall get different results in Scotland and England.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central is a practical politician and he should recognise that the Bill could have extremely damaging political consequences. I am sorry I meant to say that the amendment could have those consequences.

Mr. Sproat: A Freudian slip.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is quick off the mark.
The amendment could have extremely damaging political consequences for the unity which it seeks to preserve.

Sir John Gilmour: The referendum cannot take place unless the Bill receives Royal Assent. There are only 71 Scottish Members and, therefore it can only be by the will of English Members that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. If a majority of English Members decide to set up an Assembly, it


would be entirely stupid for us to refer the matter back to English voters in a referendum.
Scots Members are prisoners of this House. On our own, we cannot say that we shall have devolution. We are entirely dependent on English Members. In the interests of the unity of the United Kingdom, I cannot support the amendment that my parliamentary neighbour has moved.
I do not believe in referendums at all, and I do not intend to vote for the amendment or for the clause that provides for a referendum to be held. The Scottish people are prisoners of English Members and it would be wrong to put this matter back to a referendum.

Mr. Emery: Will my hon. answer this question—

Sir John Gilmour: No. I have sat down.

Mr. Emery: This is a Committee.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has resumed his seat.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I shall be brief, not least because what I have to say may make me unpopular. I shall not support the amendment. I do not like referendums, and if we had a House that had been elected by proportional representation, we would have had better government for a long time and this Bill would not be before us now, but in present circumstances a referendum is necessary.
If Amendment No. 586 had not been tabled I should be more inclined to vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but that later amendment will provide a tough test of Scottish opinion.
What worries me is what would happen in Scotland if we had a "Yes" vote there and a "No" vote in England, when one of the origins of the Bill has been the view, right or wrong, among some people in Scotland that they have suffered for too long from what they consider to be English rule. The reaction in Scotland to such a vote could be very strong.
Finally, we should not presume too much about the outcome of the refer-

endum if the amendment is carried and the Bill is passed. There is more than one possible result. What would happen if England said "Yes" to devolution and Scotland said "No"?

Mr. Pym: In the interests of time, I shall be brief. I have reservations about the amendment. To some extent, they tended to be removed by what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, because he alarmed me too much the other way.
Of course, the Bill affects everyone in the United Kingdom, and to that extent there is a right for all the people to vote, but equally the Bill upsets the balance within the United Kingdom to some extent. It is called the Scotland Bill, and it undoubtedly will have a more direct impact on Scotland than on the rest of the United Kingdom.
We are all involved, but the impact on Scotland is greater. That is why I share the reservations that were expressed better than I could express them by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I hope that this indicates to the Committee my feeling that, while everyone in the United Kingdom has a real interest in this matter, the interest of the people of Scotland is infinitely greater.
In making a judgment on who should vote, we must bear in mind what will be the reality of the continuing, unity of the United Kingdom. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for North Angus and Mearns and for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) have indicated positions with which I have great sympathy.

Mr. John Smith: I shall also seek to be brief in replying, although a large number of hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom have taken part in the debate.
I admire the courage of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). Any hon. Member sitting for a Scottish constituency who is prepared to say that he does not wish to see Scotland win in Argentina must take full marks for credit.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. William Hamilton: He is going to withdraw.

Mr. Galbraith: I am not. I mentioned one word in my speech which may not have been heard. That word was "almost". I said that I almost wished Scotland would lose, because I get so fed up with the synthetic feelings of animosity that are created so often.

Mr. Smith: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be misunderstood on what might be an electorally sensitive topic. I am sure that his addition of the qualifying word "almost" will bring great relief to his agent.
As usual, the hon. Member was one of the most amusing speakers in the debate. I understand his deep opposition to devolution. He has always taken that position. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), in anticipating the arguments which would be used against him, referred to the cost of his proposal. I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns about that. If my hon. Friend's proposal is considered desirable from the point of view of our democracy and of getting a decision, I do not think that the cost matters very much. If my hon. Friend was seeking to anticipate the arguments likely to be used against him, he could more easily have referred to the report of our debate on the Scotland and Wales Bill when all these arguments were advanced. In that way, he would not have needed to anticipate the Government's view.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the antics of the Scottish National Party in Fife. One could not visualise a more irresponsible and stupid course of action in relation to a very important oil development.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask my hon. Friend what progress the police have made in investigating the matter?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I do not have ministerial responsibility for the police. The matter was reported by some of the citizens in the area.
I agree, however, with what my hon. Friend said about the antics of the SNP on that occasion, and I tend to agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns about the effect of some of the contributions of SNP Members to our de-

bates on devolution. Merely because they take a view about independence, they create unnecessary alarm amongst some English Members who do not understand clearly enough that what the Government are proposing is devolution and is in no way connected with any proposition for independence. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and I both support the concept of devolution, but we equally support the concept of a united kingdom—a United Kingdom which, we believe, will be strengthened by the reform in the constitution proposed in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) talked about the "despicable manoeuvrings" of my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I thought that that was a most unfortunate tone to bring into the debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will understand that, even with the "chopper" coming down at 7 o'clock, he will get his debate and, if necessary, a vote immediately after we have dealt with this amendment. I hope that he will take the opportunity at some stage to withdraw some of his remarks about skulduggery, which were disgraceful and which lowered the tone of the debate.

Mr. Higgins: My point was a very simple one. It was that, as a result of the extraordinary proceedings yesterday afternoon and again today in which the Lord President participated, a great deal of time was wasted, yet we came back to the precise position from which we had started. I do not withdraw my remarks at all. As a result, the Committee lost a great deal of debating time which it could have put to good use.

Mr. Smith: It is not to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he does not withdraw his remarks. Very little time was wasted today. There were a few points of order, but the matter did not take very long. In view of the unfounded accusations that were being made, my right hon. Friend the Lord President decided to not to move his motion. In any event, the proposal to make the change was made to the Business Committee before the Amendment even appeared on the Amendment Paper. That must be the final answer to that absurd accusation.

Mr. George Cunningham: This is not the time to pursue these matters. I keep telling my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they have 51 out of the 52 cards in the pack and both jokers, and that they must not object when hon. Members use what little—

The Chairman: Order. I agreed with the first sentence uttered by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) when he said that this was not the time to discuss these matters. I have no views on the remainder of his comments. I appeal to the Committee to concentrate upon the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Cunningham: I did not start it.

The Chairman: I make a general appeal.

Mr. Smith: I shall not refer to these matters further, because I accept your ruling, Mr. Murton. But may I remind my hon. Friend that I did not raise the subject in this debate? It was the hon. Member for Worthing who did so, and I thought that his despicable attack on the Government needed to be answered. I am glad to return to the more healthy atmosphere of the debate, which was for a short period made unhealthy by the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The main argument against the amendment is the one made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, who asked what would happen and what Parliament would do in a situation in which there was one vote in England and another vote in Scotland. An even more ingenious example came from the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), who asked what would happen if England said "Yes" and Scotland said "No".

Mr. Emery: Let us suppose that in the referendum there is a very close decision. Everyone suggests that it will be very close. Let us say that the result is 49 per cent. to 51 per cent. either way in Scotland. If there were then a strong view in the rest of the United Kingdom, since the referendum is only consultative, how would it help the House in coming to the right decision?

Mr. Smith: I thought that right hon. and hon. Members reflected the views of

their constituents and it is the Parliament of the United Kingdom which will pass this legislation.
The difference is that the proposals in the Bill will affect more directly the people living in Scotland. As it is they who will be most directly affected, we thought it wise to consult them before the Bill, which Parliament has to pass on behalf of the whole United Kingdom, is put into effect.
It has been said constantly in these debates that the people of Scotland do not want devolution. I am advised of that by hon. Members with varying states of knowledge of Scottish opinion on these matters. But no one has a perfect knowledge. We shall not know ultimately until the question is put. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central that his constituents do not want the Bill, yet he seems to want a referendum for the whole United Kingdom rather than one just for Scotland.
A real difficulty arises when we consider the possibility of getting different answers from different parts of the United Kingdom. It is fair to remind the Committee that the Northern Ireland border poll, taken under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, was one which dealt with a constitutional matter where the Northern Ireland voters were consulted since they were far more directly affected by the proposals than were voters in other parts of the United Kingdom. The necessary legislation was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, and, so far as I know, there was little objection from voters in other parts of the United Kingdom to the fact that it was left to those citizens of the United Kingdom who lived in and were electors in Northern Ireland.
For practical reasons, there is little merit in this amendment. That is the reason which led the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to advise the Committee in the way that he did. An almost identical amendment was discussed in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill. It was rejected overwhelmingly, and I hope that that will be the view taken by the Committee of this amendment.

Mr. William Hamilton: The most important comment that I should put on


the record in reply to the debate is that I hope Scotland wins the World Cup in Argentina.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 184.

Division No. 77]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hodgson, Robin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt Hon James


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hordern, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Braine, Sir Bernard
James, David
Rhodes James, R.


Brotherton, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Budgen, Nick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sainsbury, Tim


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Churchill, W. S.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Clegg, Walter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dalyell, Tam
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Emery, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Stainton, Keith


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Torney, Tom


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moonman, Eric
Wiggin, Jerry


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Mr. William Hamilton and


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Terence Higgins.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
Ginsburg, David


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Golding, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crawford, Douglas
Graham, Ted


Armstrong, Ernest
Crouch, David
Grant, John (Islington C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bates, Alf
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bean, R. E.
Dempsey, James
Henderson, Douglas


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dormand, J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hooson, Emlyn


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dykes, Hugh
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Campbell, Ian
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Canavan, Dennis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cartwright, John
Forrester, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Gerald


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Freud, Clement
Kilfedder, James


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
George, Bruce
Knox, David


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lambie, David




Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Park, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Luard, Evan
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thompson, George


McCartney, Hugh
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


MacCormick, Iain
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robinson, Geoffrey
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Madden, Max
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ward, Michael


Magee, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville
Watt, Hamish


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sedgemore, Brian
Weetch, Ken


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sever, John
Welsh, Andrew


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
White, James (Pollok)


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wigley, Dafydd


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sillars, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mitchell, Austin
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spence, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Noble, Mike
Steel, Rt Hon David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orbach, Maurice
Stott, Roger
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Jim Marshall.


Pardoe, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It will doubtless have been drawn to your attention by the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means that I raised a point of order regarding Amendment No. 633 and consequential amendments. I asked whether there was any possibility of your giving further consideration to your decision that those amendments be not called, since what they seek to do is to add to the referendum question the consideration of electoral reform, which, while it has certainly been debated, has not been the subject of any consideration in a referendum and is, I would have thought, a new matter.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for writing to me today to put his point of view. He will know that I have been as helpful as I could be on the question of amendments which were out of order and have tried to suggest where they might be placed later in the Bill. As regards those amendments which have not been selected, the Chair must reserve to itself the right not to give reasons for this. I can assure the hon. Member that I thought deeply about the amendments tabled in his name and in the names of his right hon. and hon. Friends. It is a question of non-selection, and the Chair must abide by the usual practice that no reason is given.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I beg to move Amendment No. 586, in page 37, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than one-third of the persons entitled to vote on the referendum has voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule 17 to this Act he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.'

The Chairman: With this we can discuss Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 586, leave out one-third ' and insert 40 per cent.', and the following amendments:
No. 234, in page 37, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'If less than 60 per cent. of the total electorate vote or if any overall majority voting "yes" is less than two-thirds of all votes cast, the Secretary of State shall deem the legislation null and void, such decision to be laid before Parliament by draft Order in Council.'
No. 632, in page 37, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 38 and insert—
'(2) If at the conclusion of the referendum it appears to the Secretary of State that less than one-third of those on the electoral register have voted "Yes" in reply to the question in the Appendix to Schedule 17 to this Act he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.'.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The effect of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State, in the event that less than one-third of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum vote "Yes", to lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this measure. It would still be a matter for the House to decide whether to repeal the Act. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will no doubt point out that it would be open to the Secretary of State in any circumstances to take account of what had happened in the referendum and to propose the repeal of the Act if there were a derisory vote. It would be extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to do that if there had been a majority in the referendum in favour of the measure, even if it was only 10 per cent., or 15 per cent. of the Scots electorate.
It is absolutely vital to write into the Bill some minimum provision, whether one-third or 40 per cent. as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). The matter is one for the Committee to decide. It would be ludicrous to imagine that we should implement this measure if, when it comes to the referendum, we find that only a small proportion of the electorate has taken the trouble to vote, even though there may be a small majority in favour.

Mr. James Sillars: Could my hon. Friend refresh my memory of the debates on our entry to the European Community and the subject of the referendum? Can he say whether at that time he moved a similar amendment, using similar arguments, or does he reserve this kind of argument for the Scots?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: As my hon. Friend knows, political sophistication may come late in one's period in Parliament. Whether my hon. Friend has become more sophisticated or less is a matter for judgment. I did not move such an amendment but I did support the EEC referendum, which at that time was a matter of controversy. On reflection, I think that it would have been desirable to have had a similar minimum requirement provision affecting that referendum.

Even if that provision had been included, we should still be in Europe.
What I propose is a measure which will ensure that we do not have a totally derisory vote in the referendum which nevertheless results in our going ahead with the Act. I regard this amendment as absolutely central to the support I give to the Bill. I abstained on Second Reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill and I voted against the timetable motion for that Bill. By the end of the summer, I had come to the conclusion that if—it is a large "if"—a substantial majority of the people of Scotland were determined on this measure, it was not for English Members to defeat it. I have consistently voted in accordance with that principle and I have consequently supported this Bill until now.
I was horrified to learn of the business motion which was being put forward this afternoon. At the time we were debating the timetable motion on the Bill, I asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President:
May we have an assurance that, after we have had the referendum, when deciding whether to table a motion for the implementation of the Bill or for its repeal he will take into account the size of the vote in the referendum? That would ensure that the Bill did not come into effect after a derisory vote in the referendum.
My right hon. Friend replied:
This matter has already been discussed and will no doubt be discussed afresh in Committee. As I said in yesterday's discussion, of course I believe that it is right and proper that, when deciding how a referendum is to operate, the House should consider carefully how it is to be done and all the circumstances that surround it. That is of great importance, because the referendum, as a new institution introduced into our constitution, has great dangers. I do not deny that. Those dangers must be guarded against carefully. I am sure that when we discuss the allocation of time in the Business Committee that is one of the subjects to which attention must be given.
To answer my hon. Friend's particular point, I say that this will be debated when we come to it. We shall see what amendments are proposed and the House will consider the matter then."—[Official Report, 16th November 1977; Vol. 938, c. 590.]
I am glad that we are to have that discussion, but we should not have had it if the business motion had been carried.
I have always believed that this measure was likely to be disadvantageous to the people of Scotland and England and


Wales and would almost inevitably lead, at the least, to a federal State. For the reasons I have given, I accept that, if there is a strong determination in Scotland that this drastic change must go through English and Welsh MPs should not prevent it. My amendment is designed to ensure that it will go through only if there is at least a significant number voting in favour of it. I propose one-third of the electorate. I take into account, in suggesting that figure, that in the February 1974 General Election 79 per cent. of the Scottish electorate voted. In October 1974 74·8 per cent. voted.
It may be reasonable, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, that we should lay down a minimum requirement that 40 per cent. of the electorate should vote in favour of the Bill before we accept it, or before the House decides that it is not to be repealed. However, having taken soundings among my colleagues, I find that it may be that more people would be willing to support a requirement that one-third of the electorate should vote in favour.
If we had a referendum in which two-thirds of the electorate voted and slightly over one-third voted in favour, the amendment provides that the Bill would have to come into effect. However, whether we provide for 40 per cent. or one-third, or whatever is laid down in any other amendment relating to the minimum vote in the referendum, we must put into the Bill a requirement that we shall not have this measure forced upon the people of Scotland when only a small proportion of the electorate has taken the trouble to vote in the referendum.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall be brief. I understand the motivation behind the amendments, and I do not intend to go into great detail. I shall deal with this issue as a matter of principle and describe where I stand and why.
As I have said, I am totally against the holding of a referendum in the first place. I say that on the ground of principle. I believe that the introduction of a referendum into our system of government, whether for the EEC, the Scotland Bill or the Wales Bill, is an erosion of the power of Parliament and the supremacy of Parliament. For those who are opposed to a referendum on the

ground of principle, to write into a Bill containing provision for a referendum the percentages one way or the other is not compatible with being opposed to the referendum in the first place. The moment we write into a referendum certain percentages, we strengthen the power of the referendum and move it into the area in which a referendum might become mandatory.
I am against a referendum in the first place. For that one reason I believe that it is wrong in principle to write in percentages as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) suggests. It follows on from that simple point of principle that in any case the referendum in the Bill is consultative. Where we have a consultative referendum, it is meaningless to write in one percentage or another. That is because the issue must return to the House of Commons at the end of the day. On those two grounds—one of principle and one of practice—I believe that the amendment should be rejected.
I introduce one final ground that is entirely practical. Though I reject the amendment on the ground of principle, I deal with one matter that would be the effect of it that is worth consideration. In the one referendum that we have had—on the European Economic Community—the turn-out in Scotland was 61·7 per cent. as against 65 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. Of those who voted, 58·4 per cent. voted "Yes" and 41·6 per cent. voted "No". The percentage of the total electorate who voted "Yes" was 35¾ per cent. The proportion proposed by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is close to the proportion who voted in favour in the European Economic Community referendum. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) would require from the Scottish electorate a larger percentage voting "Yes" than was required in the EEC referendum.
Even if we accept the amendment on the basis that it is asking for a percentage turn-out, although I believe that it is unreasonable, it is surely unreasonable to ask for a higher standard for the Scottish Assembly when a 35 per cent. vote in the EEC referendum was regarded as acceptable. I do not intend to support either amendment, but if one or the other is to be supported I believe that the


Committee should support the amendment of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move my Amendment (a).
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) declared his opposition to the whole idea of holding referendums, and he questioned whether this was a desirable practice or one which took away from the powers of Parliament. Surely, the criteria appropriate to deciding whether one should have a referendum on any subject are pretty clear. It is desirable to hold a referendum on any major constitutional matter on which the opinion of the electorate cannot be gathered from the way in which the electorate voted in a General Election. That will normally be the situation where there is a division of opinion or a major division of opinion within the main political parties.
There is no way in which one could have decided what the people of Britain wanted on membership of the Community, for example, by reference to how they voted in a General Election. Some Labour candidates were for membership of the Community and some were against. The same was the case within the Conservative Party.
Precisely the same situation exists with regard to devolution, on which there is a division of opinion within the parties. Therefore the only way in which we can tell what the electorate wants on this issue, as on membership of the European Economic Community, is to test it directly, otherwise one is forced to realign the parties in accordance with the division of opinion on the issue one wants to test, and that, of course, is not a practical possibility.

Mr. Higgins: I find what the hon. Gentleman is saying extremely worrying. His remarks seem to imply that on any issue he would vote in accordance with the view expressed by the majority of his constituents. It must be remembered that his constituents will not have had the opportunity that we have had of hearing debates in this place and going into the matter deeply. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not in this place as a sort of calculating machine to vote in the way

that coincides with the view of the majority of his constituents. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to weigh the arguments and to act as a representative and not a delegate.

Mr. Cunningham: I did not, with respect, say anything of the sort. But before deciding how I should vote, on which it may have been observed that I am not in the habit of taking orders from anyone, I wish to know what my bosses, the electorate, want. Whether I then follow that is for me, the Member, to decide, taking into account that they are acting as the major factor. But there are also other considerations as well, including the Member's own conscience, that being one of the factors involved, but only one of the factors involved.
The other point made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns was to compare a referendum on devolution with the referendum on the EEC held within Scotland. I think that this can be a misleading comparison, for two reasons. First of all, the referendum on membership of the Community was a referendum put to the United Kingdom as a whole. There was no question that Scotland would have a separate right to remain in the Community or not.
With regard to the referendum on membership of the Community for Britain as a whole, the referendum result passed the test imposed by the amendment of my hon. Friend and also the tougher test proposed by my sub-amendment, and passed it comfortably. It is true that, had the question been put separately for Scotland, the Scottish figure would not have passed the test. But the question was not put separately with respect to Scotland.
7.0 p.m.
The second matter which was different in nature in that referendum was that we were deciding not whether we should enter the Community but whether we should come out. I think that the imposition of a minimum level to make a referendum effective can be different in those circumstances. If we had had a referendum with regard to going in in the first place, it would have been different. But when we start in the middle of the game and do not have a referendum on whether to go in and we say that we shall have a referendum to decide whether we stay in, it is a different test.
This is only the second referendum that we have had, or are to have, on a major constitutional issue. Therefore, it is reasonable to learn from our own experience and not necessarily to follow the precedent that we adopted before.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend indicated that his amendment might not have been applicable to the EEC referendum because it was a matter of coming out rather than going in. Surely, one would require a minimum to upset an existing constitutional arrangement approved by Parliament and embodied in the Treaty.

Mr. Cunningham: I only say that it is a complication in that case which does not exist with regard to the present one.
The reasons why, in my opinion, it is right to have a referendum on this issue can be quickly stated. First, it is a major constitutional change. Second, it is one on which the parties are divided within themselves. The division of opinion on the subject is not congruent with the division between the political parties. Third, it is in practice an irrevocable step. No one knows that more than the SNP. The SNP knows that, though this Parliament could tear up the devolution Bill after it had been brought into force, that is not a matter of practical politics.
Then we have the fact that we all know that, if devolution goes ahead, we shall all, to put it at its most modest, have to cross our fingers and hope (a) that it does not lead to constant haggles between Edinburgh and London, as many of us think it will, and (b) that those haggles will not lead to a progression towards independence without the people of Scotland wanting independence but always feeling that they can achieve a more logical arrangement by taking one further step and then one further step. Those are the considerations that make me feel that there should be a referendum on this issue.
Then there is the question of what kind of minimum test we need to impose. There is, of course, a minimum test implicit in having a referendum at all—namely, that more people should vote "Yes" than should vote "No". The only question is whether we impose a minimum majority.
There are two ways in which to do that. First, we could require a minimum

percentage of the electorate to vote, however they voted, and, secondly, we could require a minimum majority of those who vote "Yes" over those who vote "No".
The formula adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) combines elegantly those two requirements, because, as he pointed out, if the poll is twice the percentage stated in the threshold, a majority of one vote will be sufficient for the referendum to count as a "Yes", as it were. If, however, the poll is lower than twice the proportion stated in the threshold, a larger majority is required in order to make the referendum count as a "Yes". That surely is as it should be. The more people who stay at home and do not vote at all, the larger the majority of the "Yeses" over the "Noes" amongst the rest of the population that we ought to require. So it is a question of what figure we should put in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden suggests 33⅓ per cent.; I suggest 40 per cent. We should all recognise that there is nothing magic or sacred about any figure in this context. If there were any very natural figure to be found, it would be 50 per cent. One might say that, on a matter of this importance and of this irrevocable nature, we should require that 50 per cent. of the electorate should vote for it or we do not go ahead. But no one is proposing that. We could have gone for a more modest proposal—that ·45 per cent. of the electorate should vote for it. We are not going for that. I am suggesting a very modest figure—that 40 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland should declare positive support for the proposal, or the referendum does not bind us morally to go ahead with devolution.
I do not think that that can be called a wrecking amendment for devolution, first because it is not a figure which was not met in the EEC referendum. The EEC figure for the whole of the United Kingdom was that just under 43 per cent. voted "Yes". That is, 43 per cent. of the electorate in the United Kingdom as a whole voted "Yes". Therefore, my test, if imposed in the referendum, would have been very comfortably met.
Secondly, if the Government are right, if the SNP is right and if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for


the SLP is right—that the people of Scotland overwhelmingly want devolution—there is no problem. If they overwhelmingly want devolution, far more than 40 per cent. will presumably vote for it. I am not asking that the overwhelming majority, or even that the majority, should vote for it, but only that 40 per cent. should be prepared to go out and vote for it.

Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend mentioned the Common Market referendum several times and said that, even on his threshold, it would quite comfortably have made it in United Kingdom terms. Will he give the facts to support that contention on his part? I understand that it would just have made over 40 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 36 per cent. in Scotland. Everyone accepted that that was a pretty overwhelming vote on the count, but on my hon. Friend's test it is far from an overwhelming vote.

Mr. Cunningham: With respect, if one takes the figures one finds that a very large number of votes result in a not very large increase in the percentage. I confirm the figure given by my hon. Friend. My figure for Scotland shows that just a shade under 36 per cent. of the electorate voted "Yes". For the United Kingdom as a whole I make it 42·9 per cent. In England it was 44·2 per cent. I regard the figure for the United Kingdom—that is what matters, because it was a United Kingdom referendum—as a comfortable majority over the threshold that I am suggesting. It is certainly over the threshold that I am suggesting. Whether one chooses to call it "comfortable" or not is a matter of semantic judgment.

Mr. John Smith: There was a widely expressed opinion, when the result of the EEC referendum was announced, that it was a decisive, almost overwhelming, decision in favour of staying within the Common Market. But, according to my hon. Friend's reasoning, it just scraped by on his test. Has there to be such a decisive result in this referendum as there was in the Common Market referendum before devolution is brought into effect?

Mr. Cunningham: No. Instead of the 42·9 per cent. outcome on that threshold, there needs to be a 40 per cent. outcome. I invite the Minister to recollect how

many times since the EEC referendum people have invoked the fact not only that the country voted to stay in but that it overwhelmingly voted to stay in. The people have not simply relied on the fact that the "Yeses" were more than the "Noes"; they have relied on the strength of the majority. The validity of that decision has always been based on a provable assertion that it did not just scrape through but was a significant majority. What I am saying is that a similarly significant majority, or something within 3 per cent. of it, ought to be required before going ahead on this issue.

Mr. Sillars: I think that all who took part in the referendum campaign in Scotland, irrespective of the side on which they took part, would concede that the Scottish results was overwhelmingly in favour of the Common Market. Therefore, those in favour of devolution could score exactly the same overwhelming vote for devolution as the "Yes" campaign for staying in the Common Market but on this occasion would lose.

Mr. Cunningham: With great respect, the vote in Scotland on the EEC referendum was nothing like an overwhelming vote when compared with the vote in England or with the United Kingdom as a whole.
Let us look at the kind of polls which are achieved in Scotland. Let us not take just the last year or two but look back over a prolonged period of time and take the figures for the last quarter of the century, omitting 1945 because that was unusual at the end of the war and there was an out-of-date register. Over the nine General Elections, the average poll in Scotland was 77·4 per cent. If that were the poll in the devolution referendum, my test would require that the "Yeses" should get 51 per cent. of those who actually vote. Only 51·7 per cent. is a very, very modest margin above a fair majority.
The lower the poll, the larger the majority needs to be. That is in the nature of things. If the poll were 70 per cent., the "Yeses" would need to obtain 57 per cent. of the votes cast. If the poll were 65 per cent.—and surely it cannot be as low as that if the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people want devolution—the "Yeses" would have to


get 57·5 per cent. of the votes cast. I hope that no one is proposing to impose devolution if the poll is actually less than 65 per cent.
If the poll were only 60 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the Scottish people cared so much about devolution that they stayed at home, it would be necessary to obtain two-thirds of the votes cast. Some would believe that that was perfectly natural for a constitutional change such as this.
I quote these statistics to show that if there is anything like a reasonable poll, if there is anything like a normal poll in Scotland, even my test is one which requires the "Yeses" to exceed the "Noes" by a tiny margin, by not much more than 50 per cent., which any threshold would require.
The SNP has been telling us for a long time that the people of Scotland over the last quarter of a century have not really had the full range of choice before them. After all, in most of the elections most electors have had what the SNP would regard as a poor choice—between the Labour, Liberal and Conservative Parties. They have not had the SNP. Nevertheless, they have voted on average to the tune of 77·4 per cent. If they did that with their restricted choice, we must assume that, faced with devolution—which we are told they are dying to have—they will surely come out in these numbers at least.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member has said that we say that the Scottish people are dying to have devolution. I do not know where he has been. Perhaps he has been in Islington all his life. What the SNP has been saying is that the Scottish people should have control over their own affairs. They are being offered devolution by the Government, but not the choice that we want.

Mr. Cunningham: We all know that the SNP will try to get its supporters to vote for devolution, not because it believes in devolution—the SNP at least is perfectly honest about this—but because it wants its supporters to vote " Yes " in the referendum because it knows—it is honest enough to admit it—that getting devolution is not only the easiest way of getting independence but is the only way in which

they stand a cat in hell's chance of getting independence.
Those who want independence will be voting "Yes" and those who genuinely want devolution—although they are limited in number—will also vote "Yes". They are faced with that choice—not a choice of individuals but a choice of a system of government which, we are told, they want either in its own right or as a paving stone to independence. If the people do not come out at least in their normal proportions, that will tell us something and we are entitled to take that into account and say that a majority is required of the "Yeses" over the "Noes".
This referendum will not be mandatory. Nothing will be legally binding upon the House of Commons. Whatever comes before the House in the way of an order from the Government will be passed or not passed according to the discretion of the House. Anyone who feels that a referendum is all right if it is not binding should not be worried about my amendment, because these changes would have no effect upon that point.
Equally, the failing of the test does not mean that devolution does not go ahead. I want to stress that strongly. Let us assume that only 37 per cent. or whatever the figure is, votes "Yes" in the referendum. That does not mean that devolution necessarily stops. All it means is that the Minister has to produce an order which has the form of repealing the Act and to put that order before the House. It would then be entirely up to the House whether to pass it. I can certainly foresee circumstances in which, because the test had not been met but had nearly been met and the number of "Noes" was particularly low, the House would decide that in all the circumstances it would not repeal, although the matter had been brought to the House to consider repeal.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member proposes to lay down certain minima for the votes in the referendum and then says that, if the vote falls just short of the standard he has set, the House would still have a discretion and would be acting on an order which had an impact. Does the hon. Member accept that those who can best gauge the opinion of the


Scottish people are the Scottish Members of Parliament and that only they should have the right to vote on such a motion?

Mr. Cunningham: I take the view that only the Scottish people, in the way defined by the SNP, are entitled to decide whether Scotland becomes independent. The question is whether Scotland should become independent. Only the Scottish people, as defined by the SNP, are entitled to take that decision, and not English Members or English Members with Scottish accents.
But that does not apply to devolution, because devolution does not affect only Scotland. It affects the whole of the United Kingdom. If it is a half-and-half thing which messes up our system, we are entitled to have a say in it. If we did not, the cry would soon go up "You have got votes in our Parliament and we have not got votes in yours." That entitles the English to have a say in the matter.
The only effect of this threshold is that, if the threshold is not met, the House has to reconsider the matter the Government would have to bring in an order which required the House of Commons to reconsider the matter. It does not seek to terminate devolution automatically, and in practice it would not necessarily do so. It simply imposes a level and provides that if that level is not reached the House of Commons will want to look at the matter again. In my view, it would not be fair to hold a referendum without giving any indication to the Scottish people that we propose to take account of the size of the poll and of the size of the majority, both of which are involved in this type of amendment.
The test is a reasonable one for such a fundamental and irrevocable change as is being proposed. The figure is even perhaps a shade too modest. If the SNP and the Government are even remotely right in saying that a significant majority of Scottish people want this change, they have nothing to worry about. Yet we are observing that they are worried. The Scottish Labour Party is to vote against my amendment, and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will no doubt make his own points.
The SNP, which says that Scotland wants this change, is against the amendment, and so are the Government. The only people who should be against it are those who, whether they say so or not, suspect that there is not a majority of people in Scotland positively in favour of the amendment but who are determined to impose it whether that majority exists or not. If they believe in what they have been told about opinion in Scotland, they have absolutely nothing to fear from my amendment.

Mr. Sproat: Like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), I have been truly amazed by the reaction his amendment has drawn from the SNP Bench. I thought that the SNP's reaction would be to say that the amendment would not matter either way because, it believed, the people of Scotland were so overwhelmingly in favour of the change. But we can see nervousness creeping in. The SNP Members know that their support is falling away in Scotland. They know, too, that support for the Bill is falling away. This evening they will put their feet where their mouths are by voting against the amendment. They will prove that they are nervous. We shall be grateful to hon. Members for these amendments, if for no other reason, because they enable us to see the fears that are beginning to surface in the SNP.
I support the amendments in principle, although I do not agree with the figures. I believe that the greatest peril of all the perils that this Bill could bring to this country is the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is something we should never lightly put at risk. We may dispute how great the risk is, but it certainly exists. I believe it is a great risk and, therefore, it is totally reasonable to write in figures of this nature.
As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury showed in his comprehensive mathematics, these are not unreasonable figures. They were met in the only other referendum we have experienced, so it is not unreasonable to seek either the lower percentage or the 40 per cent. figure. That is a reasonable safeguard to protect us from the great danger of break-up. It is only right that we should ask for a substantial vote from the people of Scotland if they want to make this substantial change.
There are many elections that return very low polls. I am sure no one in this Committee thinks that in local elections the polls are ever high enough. Ultimately, however, they relate only to a term of four or five years, after which matters can be changed. This referendum relates to an irrevocable issue, and there is no way in which, once the people of Scotland have been given their own Assembly, any Government in this Committee will take it away.
With such an irrevocable decision in the balance it is not unreasonable to ask the people of Scotland to come out in substantial numbers. If I had a complaint to make it would be that the figure of 40 per cent. is too low.

Mr. John Smith: Surely the hon. Member would accept that the decision to stay in the EEC was of considerable constitutional importance. Did he advocate such a proposition as he is now supporting at the time that the Bill on the EEC referendum was debated by the House?

Mr. Sproat: I give the Minister the answer that was given to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) by one of his hon. Friends. He said, candidly, that length of days in the House brings maturity. No doubt if I had thought of that matter then I should have been happy to have supported a minimum vote requirement, but that minimum vote was achieved anyway, and so the argument does not arise.
Two interesting points arise. The first is the fear shown by the SNP. The second is the fact that the Minister of State is relying on what must be one of the feeblest of debating points. He has been reduced to asking a question on something that happened five years ago.

Mr. Sillars: May I advance the hon. Member's maturity into the policy area mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of certain difficult industrial disputes in the future, in which cases she would seek to resolve the matter by the introduction of a referendum? In those circumstances would the hon. Gentleman argue the 40 per cent. threshold, or would he roll himself back to be a juvenile again?

Mr. Sproat: It is not necessary to be offensive in order to be irrelevant. For

me to answer that question would be totally irrelevant.
I support both hon. Members and whichever amendment goes to the vote. If the people of Scotland support devolution, I believe that they must do so in numbers. I do not believe that they will, and therefore I am happy to support the amendments.

Mr. William Hamilton: I prefer to confine my remarks to my amendment, but it covers the same point as the other proposals except that the mathematics are slightly different. I was disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) say that when there was a division within a party we should have a referendum. If one accepted that principle, one would be taken on to extremely dangerous ground. If that position pertains to anything which might be raised in this place, the obvious solution would be not a referendum but a free vote—

Mr. George Cunningham: They are all free votes.

Mr. Hamilton: So far as I am concerned, they are all free votes, but many hon. Members appear to be frightened of the Whips. I do not know why, but that kind of animal appears to be about.
Before I move on to the substance of my speech, may I seek clarification from you, Mr. Murton, on whether we might have separate votes on these amendments if we so wish?

The Chairman: After consideration, I think that the best thing I can do is to reserve my position on that matter. We are in fact debating Amendment No. 586 plus Amendment (a). The hon. Member is speaking to his own amendment. I must leave for the time being the question about Divisions on other amendments.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: I am much obiged, Mr. Murton. That clarifies the position. We shall have to wait to see how far it has been clarified. In general terms the reason for the amendment, and, I suspect, the reason for the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had some reservations—is


that a referendum is an undesirable innovation in our constitution. But, having been landed with it, any question put to the people is an indication that we are throwing the ball of sovereignty into their court. We are saying that we cannot in this Committee decide, and we are asking the people to tell us what they want. If that is so, it must be seen to have massive support in Parliament and outside.
No such claim can be made for the guillotine. There has been far too much arm-twisting, bullying and threatening for that argument to be sustained. It might be argued against any attempt to put percentages in as to who supports the legislation and who does not that we do not do such a thing in a General Election. It might be asked why it should be done in a referendum. The answer is that a referendum is very different from a General Election. In a General Election, although a Government might be elected with a majority of members in the House of Commons, that result can he overturned in five years or less. Whatever injustices there are usually balance out over a period. But this legislation, if passed, would produce a state of affairs which would be irrevocable. It is quite true that Parliament, being sovereign, could overturn it. But it is a bit like falling off a cliff. One cannot change one's mind and go back.
That is precisely what we are doing here. For good or ill, Scotland will be stuck with its Assembly for ever. This is where the difference of opinion comes in. The SNP takes the view that it wants the Assembly because it is on the road along which it wants to go. The Government take the opposite view. They say that it is precisely to stop that legislation that they are insisting on this guillotine and getting the legislation through, despite the fact that the majority of the House of Commons is against it.
That being the state of play now, it seems that it is vital to get decisive and irrefutable evidence that there is the wholehearted consent, to coin a phrase, of the Scottish people. That wholehearted consent must mean more than 50 per cent. It cannot be defined as less than 50 per cent. So that will not do. We cannot regard silence as being consent. It might be boredom or just solemn, helpless hostility.
Despite what everybody from the SNP says, there is a lot of boredom in Scotland with the Bill. In Scotland the people are much more concerned with bread and butter issues than with the machinery of Government. That has always been so. There is no enthusiastic support for the legislation. That is why a considerable amount of worry is being expressed lest these fairly reasonable precautions are put into the Bill. To thrust this medicine down the throats of obviously reluctant patients would be the action of the worst kind of witchdoctor.
Let me pose some possible results from this referendum. There might be a poor turn-out of, say, 25 per cent. The SNP would say that that was impossible—far too many people are just raring to go. Let us assume that it is 25 per cent. and 13 per cent. of the people are for and 12 per cent. against. The Secretary of State has to come to the House of Commons, according to subsection (2) of Clause 82,
If it appears to the Secretary of State…
a very generalised term, the meaning of which I do not know and neither, I suspect, do the Government—
—having regard to the answers given in the referendum and all other circumstances".
So it is a consultative referendum in any case.
But supposing the Secretary of State got that result of 13 per cent. for and 12 per cent. against. Does anybody seriously believe that the Secretary of State could say "This is overwhelming evidence that the Scottish people are just wanting nothing more than an Assembly in Edinburgh"? I do not believe that the Government could do that. Even if the result was 25 per cent. against nothing—if 75 per cent. of the people said that they were so bored with it because it was so irrelevant and they wanted nothing to do with it—the Secretary of State would be hard pressed to justify any action designed to get the legislation on the statute book.
Let us take the other extreme. Supposing there is an 80 per cent. turn-out and it is narrowly divided 40–40 or 41–39. What then? What would the Secretary of State recommend to the House of Commons? I suppose that the most sensible course in that event would be to


say "All right, there has been divided opinion in Scotland. The ball is passed to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom and there shall be a free vote here." Maybe only Scottish Members should vote. I would be in favour of that, so long as it was a free vote. There would be no doubt about the result then. Therefore, I would accept the argument that we should let only the Scottish Members vote and let the Whips mind their own business. Then we should see what the result would be.
Supposing we had the other alternative of a high turn-out, a clear majority for or against. I ask my hon. Friends how they define a clear-cut majority. They have not stated figures, but they clearly must have something in mind when the result is known. The Secretary of State who comes back to the House of Commons with the result will have it in mind whether he has a clear mandate to continue and ask that the legislation be pursued. He must have some figures in mind. The Government cannot pretend to push on regardless of the figures.
I come specifically to my amendment. It is very reasonable. There are important differences between my amendment and those of other Labour Members. My amendment says three things. If there is less than a 60 per cent. vote, or if less than two-thirds of those voting have voted "Yes", the Secretary of State will recommend to the House of Commons, which will take the final decision whatever the result, that the legislation he null and void. But I take account of the possibility—I put it no higher—of there being a turn-out of less than 50 per cent. If there were, I require only 34 per cent. to vote "Yes"—two-thirds of that 50 per cent.—which is not overwhelming enthusiasm for the legislation. If there is only a 30 per cent. vote, 20 per cent. or 20 per cent. plus would carry the day. That does not seem to me to be an extravagant proposition.
Hon. Members ask me where the 60 per cent. figure came from. It did not just come out of my head. I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has been in Transport House. He knows that we cannot get anything in our manifesto unless it has been passed

by a two-thirds majority at our conference. Therefore, what applies to our party should not be unacceptable to the Government who are in office because of that conference. That is a fairly good reason why the amendment should be considered.
We must have some explanation from the Government of their thinking on this matter. If by moving these amendments we get some clarification of the vague phrase in subsection (2), the debate may have served a useful purpose.

Mr. George Gardiner: I should like to speak very briefly in support of Amendment No. 586 and, indeed, of Amendment (a). I would marginally prefer the figure suggested in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), but in the absence of that being agreeable to the Committee I would happily settle for that which is suggested in Amendment No. 586.
As an amendment in the name of one of my right hon. Friends and in my name is included in this group, I should like to make a very similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), namely, to ask whether in certain circumstances, Mr. Murton, you would consider a request from us for a separate vote on Amendment No. 632. I would expect that those circumstances are most unlikely to arise. It will not have passed the observation of hon. Members that the terms of Amendment No. 632 are very similar to those of Amendment No. 586. However, in the event of the Committee not having a clear opportunity to vote on Amendment No. 586 as it stands now, we would wish, Mr. Murton, to ask you for a separate vote on Amendment No. 632.
On the general point, we are dealing here with proposals for yet another referendum. It is obvious from the debate that uppermost in the minds of us all are the arguments and discussions that we all went through not long ago over whether there should be a national referendum on the question of our membership of the European Community. We recall the very strong opposition that was then expressed by myself and many of my hon. Friends to the introduction of the concept of the referendum into our British constitutional practice.
The argument made at the time was as follows: "These are most exceptional circumstances. This is a once-for-all exercise, so this referendum proposition is being brought forward solely in this context and we could not expect it to arise again." However, sure enough, in a couple of years, as a result of a rather different set of political circumstances, party convenience and all the rest of it, the proposition was made again, and it is before us tonight.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is referring, as so many speakers in the debate have done, to the two referendums. Would he allow that there is no real comparison between them? The European referendum was to seek confirmation of a step that we had already taken and a step that Parliament had taken. The referendum being sought here is something which, if by one means or another a majority is given, will be not merely irrevocable but could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is something that touches upon the interests of every man, woman and child in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the argument that so many others have pursued, quite irrelevantly, of drawing a comparison between the two referendums. We are faced here with a proposition that could mean the destruction of our country.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gardiner: I accept that point. I was not seeking to draw a comparison between the two referendums. The point I was seeking to make is that a practice that was introduced only two or three years ago, under cover of the argument that it was a once-for-all exercise, has arisen again. Clearly we must take cognisance of the fact that calls for referendums will probably be made in the future, in different combinations of political circumstances. I am arguing that, it we are to embark upon this course, we should fairly soon begin thinking of some of the ground rules that should apply in referendums.

Mr. Buchan: A great deal of the burden of the hon. Member's speech, and of the speeches of other hon. Members, has been about the necessity or otherwise, or the desirability or otherwise, of a

referendum, qua referendum. To deal with that and with the hon. Member's fear of a pattern developing because there was a referendum two or three years ago and one is proposed now, let me say that the point, surely, is that in those situations in which the sovereignty of the House of Commons and of the State is in question the matter can only be passed to the people for them to decide. It is only proper that they should decide, because we have not been elected to this place to supervise the break-up of the United Kingdom, nor to pass sovereignty from this place to the Common Market headquarters. Therefore, it was proper, and seriously proper, to put the matter to the people.
Having said that, in relation to the independence question it was because of the case for both the necessity and the constitutional propriety of a referendum on the independence question—that is, sovereignty—that the campaign for a referendum was ever raised.

Mr. Gardiner: I understand that point. I do not wish to develop now an argument for or against referendums as such, or to talk about the situations in which they should rightly or not rightly be held. I am only saying that now that we see the idea of the referendum recurring in political arguments of this kind it would be as well for us to start working out some ground rules for their application.
Related to that is my second point. I again refer back to the arguments of two or three years ago. We remember all the warnings about the uses to which referendums have been put in the past in other countries by Governments and régimes with which we in this place would have no sympathy. It seems to me that we must not walk into this situation with our eyes closed. We must at least allow for the fact that it is quite possible for a Government to misuse the idea of the referendum.
A hedge against that, at least, is to build in the concept that a certain proportion of the electorate must vote positively for what is suggested if the referendum is to have validity. That is my general point.
I come to my more specific point, which echoes what has been said from the Government Benches. We have been


told time and again that there is a great head of steam in Scotland for this and that popular enthusiasm is bubbling over for some kind of Assembly. However, my Scottish colleagues bring back very different evidence to me. It is very interesting, and I find it plausible.
Looking at public opinion polls that have been conducted, polls of the kind that invite people to place issues before them in order of importance, we see that the issue of devolution tends to rate very low in Scotland. That is for understandable reasons. Many other issues come ahead of it. Therefore, it seems that there is a serious prospect or danger of a referendum of the kind proposed in Scotland producing a very low turn-out.
In these circumstances, it seems to me inconceivable that we should accept a verdict from a referendum which was based on a very low turn-out, and consequently, whatever its result, a very low majority verdict in relation to the total size of the electorate.
The point has been made that by putting figures into the referendum provisions we undermine the consultative nature of the referendum. I just cannot understand that argument. Amendment No. 586 provides specifically that if less than one-third of the persons entitled to vote have voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed the Secretary of State
shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.
It says nothing whatsoever about what Parliament should do, and it will be entirely up to us to decide, just as it would be if the Bill went through as at present drafted.
Obviously, all Members, in the event of the amendment being passed, or in the event of the Bill going through as at present drafted, would take into consideration, in casting their votes in those circumstances, such matters as the degree of turn-out in the referendum and the proportion of the electorate voting "Yes". I for one would have no hesitation in voting against an order of the kind suggested under the Bill if the proportion of the electorate in Scotland voting "Yes" were less than 40 per cent. or, even worse, less than one-third of the total electorate.
If that is my position—and I fancy it would be the position of a great number of Members—then surely the elec-

torate, in joining in a referendum, should have some idea of the criteria which have to be met if that referendum verdict is to be taken seriously.
I submit that amending the Bill in the way proposed would at least ensure that we are dealing honestly with the electorate. We would be telling them that it is no use having a 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. lead in a 40 per cent. turn-out. We would be telling them what, in the eyes of Parliament, is likely to constitute a valid referendum verdict. In all these matters, the more honest we can be with the electorate, the better.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When the referendum takes place, as I am sure it will, I shall be campaigning vigorously for a "No" vote. I shall also be campaigning vigorously for a high turn-out, because I think that both are mutually acceptable and mutually necessary.
I am astonished at the sudden cold wind which has been blowing through this Chamber as people have suddenly thought that there might be a low turnout. I echo the words of many other hon. Members who say that we are always told that there is tremendous enthusiasm, and anticipation of an Assembly coming into being—that the Scots are champing at the bit outside, in Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and everywhere else, to bring the Assembly into being.
One or two hon. Members have questioned the need for a referendum and, indeed, the reason for having some kind of proportion of votes. It has been said that one reason why we must have a referendum is that there are differences among the main parties with regard to the possibility of devolution, but it is not simply that. There is a curious amalgam taking place. On the Government side, there is a division of opinion for and against devolution. The same applies to the Opposition Benches. But there is a curious consensus view between the two Front Benches in that they are in favour of something called devolution. Although they cannot quite agree what it is, they are all in favour of something called devolution.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), for example, made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that he and his party officially were in favour


of devolution. In the winding-up speech on that occasion we heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). We all know him, and it is tempting to think that even he sometimes does not believe a word of what he says. Nevertheless, we must take him at face value when he is speaking from the Dispatch Box, and he said specifically that a vote against the Second Reading of the Bill was not a vote against devolution.
There is a consensus view, therefore, between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Cathcart on the principle of devolution, although they have their quarrels about the details. It is this almost contradistinction of ideas which makes it necessary to have a referendum, and necessary that, once we have the referendum, we obtain a decisive result.
Even if perchance the Bill were to fall on Third Reading because of lack of time, or through being overtaken by another event, or otherwise, I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are so wedded to the idea of devolution that they would bring it back either in the next Session of this Parliament or in the first Session of a new Parliament.
Similarly, I believe that if the Conservative Party were unhappily to become the Government, it would, having made so many wonderful promises about some kind of devolution, feel bound to try to do something.
The only way in which we can properly decide the issue of devolution, therefore, is away from the House of Commons in Scotland as a whole. That is the only place in which it can be done.
What worries me most about the devolution debate—which has taken place not since the report of the Kilbrandon Commission but since a certain by-election in Hamilton—is that it has distorted the whole spectrum of Scottish politics. We have never been arguing about the real questions. We may disagree about the solutions, but all of us know that unemployment is unacceptably high. That is what we ought to be debating here day after day after day.
Why are not questions such as the economic future that Scotland faces, and the issues affecting shipbuilding and steel,

available to us for discussion? It is not just because the Bill is before us. It is because so many people have posed devolution as being the primary concern of the Scottish people. I do not believe that it is, and we never really get to grips with the basic political arguments about politics, which are concerned with economics and class. At least my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and I agree about that.
As to the basic question of independence posed by the Scottish National Party, I notice that it never at any time campaigns on the issue of independence, for good or ill. From its point of view, only good can come from it. I have always said and accepted, on the basic question of independence, as posed by the SNP, or devolution, that if the majority of the Scottish people want it and vote for it I shall accept that result.

Mr. Timothy Raison: What makes the hon. Gentleman think that a referendum would settle the question? If we had a referendum and devolution or separation were rejected, the campaign would go on just as hard as it had ever done.

Mr. Hughes: The campaign, either for devolution or for independence, of course, will not go away. I do not pretend for one moment that it will go away. There will be arguments about it, but they will not be in this Chamber all the time, nor will they be in Scotland all the time, because people will be forced to turn their attention back to the basic issues which I have tried to explain. What I am certain about it that unless we have a decisive result in the country as a whole for or against it will not go away from here. We must, therefore, have a decisive result.
Why are we saying that we should in these circumstances provide some kind of threshold? I think it is necessary to have a threshold because, despite all the fine words said about it, and whatever the legislation may say. I am satisfied in my own mind that there is no such thing as a purely theoretical consultative referendum. Legally it is not mandatory. But if it could not be argued that a majority of those who voted—irrespective of the size of the poll—were in favour of devolution it would


be difficult to deny that result by bringing the Assembly into being
8.0 p.m.
It is essential to have this threshold so that we can say two things to the Scottish people who will vote in the referendum. First, we are saying "If you want this Assembly, you must positively demonstrate that you want it. You must not just grumble about the kind of Government you have". Goodness knows, it is easy to grumble about that. It has always been the case that whatever Government we have had there have been grumbles. We must ask the people to show positively that they want devolution and they must be prepared to take the trouble to go out and vote for it.
Secondly, we are saying that this is a really important issue. It will possibly decide for a decade at least the future of Scotland as well as the future of the United Kingdom and, much more importantly, the future of politics in this country.
We are saying to those people, whichever side they are on, that there can be no excuses afterwards and that there is no point coming back the day after the referendum is over and stating "If I had known it would be like this I would have gone out and voted". People must positively decide, show their enthusiasm and recognise that what is at stake in the referendum is make or break with regard to devolution.
In a sense, the referendum campaign has already started. I am concerned about the kind of letters appearing in the Scottish Press—both the daily Press and the weekly journals—referring to anti-devolutionists and asking "What kind of friends have you got?". I hope we can at least hold the referendum on a basis of policy and not snide remarks. I hope that snide remarks such as "Whose bed were you in last night?" will be ended after tomorrow when, I understand, a great umbrella organisation will be set up comprising SNP, SLP, Labour Party members, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.

Mr. John Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that the argument should be conducted on the merits of the case on either side. But surely he is already departing from his own stricture, because

although he hoped there would be no criticism, he has made such a criticism already of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and myself.

Mr. Hughes: I did not know that my hon. Friend was joining some umbrella organisation. The trouble with my hon. Friend is that he wants the argument all his way and the slightest breath of what he regards as criticism prompts him to his feet. I shall defend myself by saying that I hope these trivialities which have emerged over the last two or three weeks, such as "What kind of friends have you got'?", will end, especially since if accusations are to be made they can be made on both sides. I want nothing more to do with that, but if people want to play this dirty then by God they will get it.

Mr. Sillars: I hope my hon. Friend will be the first to admit that neither myself nor any of the people mentioned as being potentially involved in that umbrella campaign have attacked unfairly. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will be campaigning for a "No" vote for different reasons. I hope they will not think that because Scottish people may reject that view there is something about that which is not strictly politically clean. I hope that my hon. Friend will acquit me of accusations of that kind, because I would not expect them from him.

Mr. Hughes: I shall look with great interest to see who appears tomorrow, I shall also see whether any have been involved in this sort of thing. I agree entirely that we ought to stick to the politics of the argument. I hope this will be the end of remarks like "Whose bed were you in last night?", or variations of that.
I end as I began by saying that I shall campaign for a "No" vote in the referendum. I shall also campaign for a high turn-out. I believe that is consistent with supporting the amendment tonight in order to have a threshold clause.

Mr. Julian Amery: The amendments that we are considering go to the very heart of what the Bill is about. Why has the Bill been brought before the House at all? Why are the


Government, so far as I can see, resisting the amendments? It happens sometimes in constitutional government—indeed, quite often—that a Government decide that something is right in itself and that even though it is unpopular the House of Commons should be asked to support a measure which is believed to be in the public interest. All of us have had experience of Governments bringing forward measures which to our certain knowledge would be defeated in a referendum, yet we support them because we think they are right in themselves.
The Government have never claimed that this grotesque Bill is the brainchild of some philosophy which ought to be enforced and put into practice regardless of the view of public opinion, whether in Scotland or in the United Kingdom as a whole. It has never been the view that some disciple of Plato sat round the Cabinet table dreaming up this wonderful scheme and that it ought to be introduced and supported by the House of Commons on its own perfectionist merits.
The argument all the way through has been that it was necessary to produce the Bill in response to Scottish opinion. There has been a division in the House about whether Scottish opinion wants the Bill. But the basis of the Government's case in the beginning has been that unless we introduced a measure of devolution—and this particular measure of devolution—the unity of the Kingdom would be at risk.
Many of us have taken the opposite view—that the unity of the Kingdom would be at risk if the Bill went through. But the Government's case has been that, unless the Bill goes forward, the unity of the kingdom will be at risk, because they believe that the feeling in Scotland is strongly in favour of a measure such as this.
If that is their view, I simply cannot see how they can in honesty oppose the amendments that we are now debating. If it is not a philosophy brainchild argument, if Ministers are telling us that the Bill should go through, even if it is unpopular, if what they are doing is responding to genuine substantial feeling in Scotland, surely there is no reason why they should be in any way afraid of putting it to the test.
Personally, I think it wrong to put it to the test of purely Scottish opinion. I think that this is a United Kingdom matter. I do not think we can separate Scotland from England, nor do I think it right to separate the 5 million or more people who live in Scotland from the almost equal number of people of Scottish descent who live south of the border. That is why I voted in support of the last amendment, but that is now water over the dam.
We are now discussing what is to be the test of Scottish opinion. I simply fail to see how the Government can in honesty reject these amendments, which seem to be very modest. On an issue of this magnitude, I would have thought that at least 50 per cent. of the total electorate should be required to express a view in favour of the change. After all, most countries which have written constitutions expects a two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament for amendments to the constitution. That is done in the United States, Switzerland and elsewhere—and that is a two-thirds majority not of the fairly uninformed general public but of their legislators who are supposed to know what they are talking and thinking about.
Yet here it is being suggested—even if these amendments were accepted—that devolution could go through on a minority vote. It is perfectly true that such a situation occurs again and again in our General Elections. As several hon. Members have pointed out, however, there is a very big difference. We can correct the mistakes of one General Election at the next one. But if we change the constitution, we cannot.

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is putting the argument for constitutional change as an argument of a quite different character from any other political change. Would he concede that the EEC referendum was of such a character, and does he think that it was mistaken in the EEC referendum not to have a minimum voting requirement? I should be interested to have his view of that matter.

Mr. Amery: We must stick to this debate. The Minister is making a purely debating point. We are talking about whether the Government are justified in


rejecting amendments which offer the only clear way of deciding whether Scottish opinion wants this legislation. The argument on the EEC referendum was dealt with on the merits of the proposition rather than in response to what the Government are asking. In this case, the Government take the view "If we do not pass this Bill, Scottish opinion will revolt against the Government."

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce a special class of issue in which there was constitutional change. Perhaps he was not in favour of a referendum on the Common Market. Since, however, the House of Commons gave that legislation a Second Reading, why did he not table an amendment that would have required a minimum turnout in that legislation on the Common Market, because it involved a constitutional change of much the same kind as this?

Mr. Amery: The Minister is entitled to say that that might have been a more consistent step to take, but I am addressing myself to this Bill and how we are to ascertain whether Scottish opinion wants the Bill. Many of us believe that Scottish opinion does not want it, but such a proposition would give us the opportunity to find out how strong are the views in Scotland.
I do not see why the Government are so frightened of accepting these amendments. I believe that the amendments are quite moderate when one compares them with the requirements in most countries with written constitutions.
It is often argued that if we do not pass the Bill we shall endanger the unity of the United Kingdom. Many of us feel that the Bill will put that unity in danger, but this argument will turn on the strength of Scottish feeling. Therefore, is it unreasonable to ask the Government to accept these amendments, which would have the effect of testing Scottish opinion.
If the Government are not prepared to accept these amendments, one cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the only reason why the Bill is before us is that it will keep the Lib-Lab pact going, will gain a little support in the SNP and will enable Ministers to go on drawing their salaries for a little longer than they would otherwise be able to do.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I hope that in these discussions about a referendum in Scotland we shall forget about the Common Market referendum.

Mr. Amery: We cannot.

Mr. Evans: Yes, we can. I do not see any relevance between the Common Market and a constitutional measure related to Scotland. In the EEC referendum, we all had in mind the fact that the Common Market countries had already had referendums. France held a referendum to decide whether the United Kingdom should enter the EEC, and we had our referendum because we realised that the British people had never had an opportunity to give their views.
If amendments of this kind had been put forward at that time, I believe that there would have been a good case for supporting them. But it is surely not relevant to this discussion to argue what occurred at the time of the EEC referendum. We are now addressing ourselves to the referendum in Scotland, and, presumably, to the later referendum on Wales.
I was delighted by the contribution made to this discussion by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I am delighted that my hon. Friend and his colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), Glasgow, and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby), are arguing the campaign for a "No" vote in the referendum. That will rightly stimulate interest in the subject.
The purpose of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is that, if we are to have a referendum which makes sense, it must involve the majority of the people in Scotland and Wales. A Question was recently put to the Secretary of State for Wales to the effect "How many letters have you had in support of devolution?" The Secretary of State's reply was that he had received two letters in support and two in opposition. That makes me feel even more certain that the people of


Wales have no interest in a devolution measure. I believe that, if one were to ask the people of Scotland and Wales to list their priorities, they would put at the top of the list living standards, unemployment, education and health and that devolution would come last.
We are not arguing whether we are to have a referendum, because the Government have conceded that that will happen. Therefore, I do not see why the Government cannot agree to these proposals. I favour Amendment No. 586 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and also Amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friend for Islington, South and Finsbury. Indeed, I believe that a figure of 40 per cent. is too low and that we could go to a figure of 50 per cent.
The Government have taken the view—at least, this applies to some members of the Government—"We are not in favour of devolution, but there is a demand that should be met." Many of them speak with great eloquence about maintaining the unity of the people of these islands, and they suggest that this will be brought about by devolution. Paradoxically, the only wholehearted support for these proposals has come from the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, whose whole purpose is to destroy the unity of the people of this land. What a strange situation that has produced. However, if we are to have a referendum, we must write something into it. If there is to be a low turn-out in the referendum, that situation should be taken into account. I suppose that a figure of 40 per cent. would be reasonable, but if 40 per cent. of those on the electoral register are not prepared to go out to register their view on this major fundamental change in the constitution, we must take a different view of the situation.
I hope that Amendment No. 586 and the others associated with it will be put to the vote. I hope that the Government will accept these proposals. We must remember that they have come not from the Opposition but from the Government's own Labour colleagues. We are in Committee, and I hope that the Government will take cognisance of the views which have been expressed in this debate.
Not one Member on the Government side has opposed these amendment. I

hope that the Government will take account of that fact. I hope that they will make clear that they intend to accept one of these amendments, because it will stimulate interest in the referendum. We do not want a meaningless referendum. We want a referendum in which as near as possible to 100 per cent. of the populations of Scotland and Wales will participate. I regret that people in England will not be able to participate, but many of those people have relatives and friends in Scotland and Wales and I hope that they will write to them—more than they have written to the Secretary of State for Wales—stating, their feelings about these measures and stimulating interest.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister of State has mentioned the Common Market referendum. I think that he got it quite wrong, because if there had been a threshold on that referendum it would have been put on the "No" vote and not on the "Yes" vote. The "No" vote would have repealed the Treaty and changed the status quo while the "Yes" vote maintained the situation that we were in. This referendum is different. The "Yes" vote would lead to a fundamental constitutional change and could lead to the breach of the treaties and a change in the relationship between Scotland and other nations in the United Kingdom.
The amendments are all the more important following the result of the last Division. Having denied the rest of the United Kingdom the chance to take part in a referendum which affects the whole of the United Kingdom, the least that we can do is to try to make sure that the referendum result represents a positive view of a significant majority of the people of Scotland.
None of the amendments puts any constraints on the electors of Scotland or on Parliament. The only constraint is on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft Order in Council for the repeal of the Act. We may debate that and, if necessary, alter it before it is laid before us in its final form in the light of our debate.
The arguments that are being put against the amendments, including the fact that they are not needed because the referendum is only consultative, are not valid. Consultation is not valuable in itself unless it shows a definite and


positive wish for devolution, and shows it beyond all doubt.
As the debate has shown, there is grave doubt about whether the people of Scotland are remotely interested in, let alone wildly enthusiastic about, the prospect of devolution. Some hon. Members believe that they are enthusiastic and that they would turn in wrath against Parliament if they were denied devolution. What have those Members to fear from an amendment writing into the Act that the demonstration of that enthusiasm has to be part of the advice put before Parliament in the Order in Council?

Mr. Dalyell: If they had been so enthusiastic, would there not have been reverberations after 22nd February 1977? In the three months after that date I had more complaints about the price of pigeon seed than about my attitude on devolution.

Mr. Macmillan: I am merely trying to be kind to the people who say that there is a seething hidden enthusiasm for devolution. The hon. Gentleman and I have not seen it. Indeed, no one has seen it, but if it is there the supporters of devolution have nothing to fear and the Government have nothing to fear. I can see no objection to accepting at least one of the amendments.
I support the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in his proposal for a higher figure. I would rather go to 50 per cent., because it is important to be sure beyond all possible doubt that such an irrevocable step is taken only if people want it to be taken.
One of the disadvantages of simple majority votes is that they do not judge the intensity of the views of voters—whether they really believe in what they are voting for or whether they are voting to please someone else or because someone has tossed a coin and told them to vote that way. There will be taking part in the referendum people who will not realise the consequences of their votes. There will be apathy and a degree of disinterest which may lead to people voting for frivolous reasons or for reasons that are not sufficiently valid, given the importance of the vote. No doubt this happens in General Elections, but the result of that can be put right later.

This is an irrevocable step and we do not want silly votes enabling devolution to go ahead when it is not really wanted.
I have been fascinated by the fears shown by opponents of the amendments that the will of the people may prevail, that the con trick that the Government are trying to pull on the Scottish people will be seen through and that the Scottish nationalists will not be able to use devolution as a means of achieving the destruction of the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that anyone who thinks seriously about the future of this country would wish to benefit from doubtful votes or to achieve their objectives by using people who do not know what they want and are voting for something because they think that it might make things better, without knowing how or why and without seeing the dangers.
There will be those who really want the Bill, even knowing the risks entailed, including the risk that the SNP might lead Scotland to independence and that it might lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. They will support it knowing that they are setting up an organisation in Scotland which cannot be got rid of and which inevitably will be a source of conflict with Parliament at Westminster and knowing that they are affecting permanently relationships between Scotland and the United Kingdom.
There are those people who will realise that the rest of the United Kingdom will have no part in the referendum and may resent it. Those people may still want to go ahead and vote "Yes" in the referendum. If they are a big enough majority, so be it. But, if they are not and if they are only a minority, the result will lead to what we who oppose devolution fear. The rest of Scotland will never forgive us for rejecting the safeguards which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and his hon. Friends propose.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Sillars: I am opposed to the amendments. I think that that makes me about the first hon. Member to say that. I oppose them not because I do not expect the "Yes" campaign to win in Scotland; indeed, what is happening here tonight will assist us enormously to get an even bigger "Yes" vote when the


campaign gets under way. My reason for anxiety is the expectation that acceptance of the amendment will simply be another step towards right hon. and hon. Members constructing further obstacles to the implementation of this measure in the future.
Clause 82(2) provides:
If it appears to the Secretary of State, having regard to the answers given in a referendum and all other circumstances, that this Act should not be brought into effect he may lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for its repeal.
Those words "and all other circumstances", given the attitudes which I have seen developing here not just tonight but over the past two or three years, make me extremely anxious.
I anticipate that, when the referendum is over and the Government begin to implement this legislation—because it is based on a series of triggers, the first of them being the referendum—we shall hear the argument that perhaps the result was not quite as one should read it, that on the day it was raining in Grampian or in Strathclyde and that perhaps it was not quite the result which would have happened if this or that had not occurred. I expect a great deal more hassle between now and the implementation of this legislation because of what I have seen happen in this Committee, and one day I expect to hear invoked the principle of unanimity before we proceed to the establishment of a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I intervene simply on a matter of fact. Unless I have misread both Clause 82 and the amendment, the discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State to which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) objects, since it will lead to what he describes as "hassle", is removed by the amendment, because the Secretary of State will no longer have the right to bring before Parliament a draft order proposing the repeal of the legislation unless the target figure in the referendum is not reached.

Mr. Sillars: I shall explain as I proceed how the target figure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is not quite what it appears to be,

and I shall do so based on my experience as a full-time election agent.
This amendment is just another chapter in a very sorry story of obstacles which have been placed in the way of the implementation of the pledge to introduce a Scottish Assembly, and it is worth rehearsing briefly what has happened to this proposition.
Over the years, people in the Home Rule movement—and I was not one of them—were always lectured that the way to get Home Rule was to vote for it and to engage in the normal procedures of democratic pressure. They did so. The result in October 1974 was an election commitment on the part of the Labour Party. Before that election and after it White Papers were published in which there was no reference to a referendum, and in no debate in the Labour Party prior to that do I recall the possibility of a referendum being raised. After leaving the Labour Party, I can remember watching the party conference at Blackpool and seeing the idea of a referendum rejected. However, that is by the way.
The Scotland and Wales Bill contained no reference to a referendum when it was first printed. The referendum was introduced only as a means of getting that Bill a Second Reading. Had there been no referendum commitment, the Bill would not have received a Second Reading, and my right hon. and hon. Friends know that to be the case.
I believe—it is only a value judgment—that each time we appear nearer a "Yes" vote, each time we appear nearer the accomplishment of an Assembly, the rules are changed or new rules are introduced, always on the principle that it must be made harder for the Scots to have the Assembly.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend explain whether his objection to the proposed referendum is that, as the Labour Party conference approved the idea of a Scottish Assembly, we should have one even if a majority of the people of Scotland do not want it?

Mr. Sillars: I am opposed to referendums in principle. One of the greatest mistakes in British constitutional history—this will be proved in the course of time—was the introduction of the Common Market referendum.
If the concept of the referendum is to be introduced into the constitution of any country, it should be removed from the hands of Government or those with a vested interest in the answer and put into the hands of an independent judicial body which will genuinely set up the referendum question. A number of countries that have operated referendums have been those that have tended towards dictatorship—[Interruption.] There is a Left-wing point of view about France from 1968 onwards.

Mr. Buchan: What about Switzerland?

Mr. Sillars: I am not sure about the position there. I am open to correction, but probably in Switzerland there is an independent body that sets the question.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman said first that he was opposed to referendums in general. He now says that he is opposed to a referendum run by the politicians, saying that it should be run by an independent body. These are two related but separate matters. Is the hon. Gentleman sticking to the statement that he is opposed to all referendums in general on the grounds that they tend to lead to Right-wing reaction? New Zealand and other places are obvious examples that one can use against that suggestion.
I do not like referendums either, but we should bear in mind the example of Switzerland, where there are frequent referendums or plebiscites right down to the local level of the commune. If people want a new school, they may have it if they are prepared to see another 2p on the rates. Referendums are objectionable when used by dictatorships because they can control the question and the means of producing the answer.

Mr. Sillars: I am stretching my knowledge of Switzerland, but I believe that some of the citizens there can assist in establishing the question, and it is not simply a Government initiative.
I remain opposed to referendums in principle, even with an independent body to set the question, but I say that if we are to have referendums it is better that they should be carried out by an independent body rather than in the way now proposed, though it would appear that I am in a minority in this Committee. It

seems to me and to many people in Scotland that on Home Rule the Scots are required to jump a certain democratic fence and then if they jump it, or look like jumping it, the fence is raised even higher.
This brings me to the argument about a 40 per cent. threshold. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury argued that under his formula all that would need to be achieved was a 51 per cent. "Yes" vote of those voting. I cannot square that with what happened in the referendum in Scotland on the Common Market, leaving aside the question whether it should have been held. The voting was 58 per cent. "Yes" to 42 per cent. "No", yet that produced only 36 per cent. of those eligible to vote.

Mr. George Cunningham: This figure is a key one in the argument. The answer is that the poll in the EEC referendum in Scotland was much lower than a normal Scottish poll in a General Election. Over nine General Elections since and including 1950, the average poll in a General Election in Scotland has been 77·4 per cent. If one is required to achieve 40 per cent. out of 77·4 per cent. voting, all that one has to achieve is 51·7 per cent. of the votes actually cast. I shall lend the hon. Gentleman my calculator if he wishes so that he may check that. It means only 51·7 per cent. if there is merely an average General Election poll at this referendum on a matter that we are told is of great interest to all the people of Scotland.

Mr. Sillars: We have had experience of only one referendum. I believe my hon. Friend would accept that the referendum showed a tendency for the figures to be below the normal turn-out for a General Election. I found that quite a lot of people who were in favour of the idea of a referendum felt, when it came around, that they did not like to take the responsibility on their own shoulders.
I was an election agent. I know how to impose depressant pressures upon an electorate. I can recall, during my days as an agent, watching candidates arguing that everyone should turn out to vote and then hear them saying sotto voce "I hope that that does not happen in the Tory area". I have run election campaigns, having been taught how to raise the temperature in one area and how to lower it


in another, with the clear intention of affecting the turn-out. While I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will go impartially into every area stirring everyone into voting, my experience of many other people is that that is not a tactic likely to be followed.

Mr. George Cunningham: Despite those efforts, if they took place, the average over nine General Elections has been 77·4 per cent. Why should fewer people vote on an issue on which we are told they are more interested than they are in choosing between the traditional parties in a General Election?

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Sillars: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) wishes to intervene. I will give way to him and reply to both my hon Friends at once.

Mr. Dalyell: I worked in 1963 with my hon. Friend as an election agent at Limonds Wynd in Ayr. Of course one can raise or lower temperatures. Is my hon. Friend saying in these circumstances that we are supposed to believe that there is an overwhelming demand for devolution and that people lowering the temperature will make a difference such that the qualifications of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) are not met?

Mr. Sillars: I am arguing that it is possible so to engage in a referendum or an election campaign as to affect the turn-out. I argue that circumstances can affect the turn-out. If this threshold were introduced, some people working for the "No" campaign would engineer their tactics accordingly and seek to depress the turn-out. That would give them a substantial advantage.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am optimistically hoping that my hon. Friend will give me some useful information that I can use in the "No" campaign. Can he tell me how, if I wished to do so, I could discourage people who wanted to vote "Yes" from going to the polls to record their vote? Nothing in this amendment would affect my desire to get those voting "No" to the polls. The number voting "No"

would be irrelevant to the test applied for the "Yes" vote.

Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend must be off his head if he thinks that I will put into Hansard details of the tactics which would help depress a referendum turn-out. There are people within his own party who can give him all the necessary advice. There are a number of experts at his disposal, and I speak from experience.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend recognise the inherent illogicality of what he is saying? On the one hand, he is accusing those of us who want a referendum of not trusting the Scottish people while on the other he is saying that he does not trust them because he thinks they can be easily manipulated.

Mr. Sillars: When it is said that people can be manipulated it does not mean that one does not trust their acumen. Let us assume that a Bill is introduced to abolish control of expenses in parliamentary elections. The reaction among Labour Members would be well worth seeing. It is known that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North and I were engaged in the "No" campaign in the referendum. We are both well aware of the influence of vast amounts of money that were used on the "Yes" side compared to the minuscule amounts used on the "No" side. Given the way in which our society works, it is possible to manipulate people and to have an effect on them.
8.45 p.m.
I still remain optimistic. I am giving the reasons that lead me to think that some people will support the amendments. However, despite their efforts, I believe that at the end of the day there will be an overwhelming "Yes".
I turn to another part of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I hope to prove to him that it is possible to weigh the case as he has put it against those in the "Yes" campaign. For example, the register on which we are likely to contest the referendum was compiled last October. It is not due to be published until February. It was compiled in October 1977, and the date for checking it was in December. Without disrespect to any citizen in the United Kingdom, we all know that very few bother to check the


list to ensure that they have not been inadvertently removed or have not been entered, which sometimes happens.
As an election agent I was always told that the register tends on average to "die" at 1 per cent. a month. In London it tends to "die" far more quickly than that. Of course, the rate is not a constant 1 per cent. a month, but that is the rate that the register tends to show. If we talk about the register in real terms, next October, only 88 per cent. will remain on the electoral roll.

Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend must evaluate the figures. I have quickly read my list, and I pick out two elections of the nine since 1950 that took place late in the year, when this problem was most likely to arise. In 1951 the poll was 81·2 per cent., and in 1974 it was 74·8 per cent.

Mr. Sillars: Yes, but that does not for one moment invalidate the argument that I am putting. A difference of 12 per cent. in terms of the register means, give or take a few, 442,416 people. If we had a 40 per cent. threshold, it seems that my hon. Friend would accept that. That is what he has argued. It is possible for us to get 40 per cent. of the people eligible to vote given the death of the register, and yet register only 35 per cent. of the vote as "Yes". I do not think that my hon. Friend understands. If we took 40 per cent. of the register, that would come to 1,474,720. That would be the full register if no one had moved, and 100 per cent. last October was 100 per cent. next October. If it is 88 per cent. next October of the real register—

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Sillars: That is on the basis of a 12 per cent. death rate, 1 per cent. a month. My hon. Friend does not understand. I thought that I had made it clear. I was using the shorthand terms that we used to use within the organising staff of the Labour Party. When the register changed as a result of deaths and removals at 1 per cent. a month, we used to say that it died at 1 per cent. per month. I am arguing that 40 per cent. of the real register amounts to not 1,474,720 people, but 1,297,720. Even on the worst assumption, the most pessimistic assumption of the "Yes" campaign, it is possible to match my hon. Friend's test in reality but

to fail it because he did not take into account that the register is a fading factor.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Surely my hon. Friend is making the case that the referendum should be held when we get the new register. That is the only point that he is making. If he is making that case, all the other arguments fall to the ground. If he is doing so, let us have such an amendment before the Committee, and let us have the referendum when we have the new register.

Mr. Sillars: Surely my hon. Friends should have taken these matters into account in their complicated mathematical formulae.

Mr. George Cunningham: I did take it into account. If I had not, there would have been a much stronger justification for going for a figure of 50 per cent. I did not say so in my speech because this matter is complicated enough already, but if I had put in 50 per cent. I should have been asking in reality for more than 50 per cent. of the people entitled to vote. The difference is those who are on the register but who have died. That is just one of the factors explaining why I am going for the very modest figure of 40 per cent. compared with the natural majority of 50 per cent.

Mr. Siliars: If the amendment is passed, it is my intention on Report to table an amendment and talk to the Minister of State without tempting him into the umbrella campaign and hoping for his support. [Interruption.] The Minister of State and I are on reasonable terms. We invite each other all over the place. I should invite him on Report to agree to the publication of a supplementary register. I should hope to carry with me on such a proposal my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North, Islington, North and Finsbury, Aberdare (Mr. Evans), Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), West Lothian and others.

Mr. Ioan Evans: If my hon. Friend supports this amendment.

Mr. Sillars: I should not have thought that a democratic principle was contingent upon a tactical vote, but it would appear to be for some of my hon. Friends who have sought to enter a caveat. We shall have the basic democratic argument later.


It would appear that half a million people in Scotland are to be disfranchised. Why cannot they give an unequivocal "Yes"? If it is to be unequivocal and there are no problems, I shall be quite happy about it. My main concern is that this is yet another tactic to hold back Scottish devolution. It is possible that people will regard it as an argument for saying that we can still win the referendum campaign, but, at the end of the day, lose the Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has not taken account of some of the reaction inside Scotland.

Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend said that in February.

Mr. Sillars: I did not say that in February. The Scots are not very demonstrative, but the main demonstration came in November 1975. I think that we shall probably demonstrate again in a manner that will not please my hon. Friend. For example, the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North will probably be misinterpreted north of the border. If the amendment is passed, I believe that it will be regarded in Scotland as a tactic and that it will invite contempt and anger directed towards the normal democratic processes.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: My reaction to these amendments is one of anger, because the Committee is endeavouring to prevent the Scots from obtaining self-determination.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my remarks beyond the first sentence.
As events have developed over the last 10 years, we have seen that it has taken tremendous effort and pressure to gain even the Scotland Bill. If amendments similar to those which have been presented to the Committee were introduced by the pro-devolutionists to affect the "No" position in the referendum, one can imagine the anger that would have broken out in the Committee.
During the last two hours, I have made a note of some of the stages that Parliaments and Governments have gone through to reach this stage on the Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is objecting to a proposition that the majority of Scots should demonstrate that they want an Assembly? What is wrong with that proposition?

Mr. Wilson: I have nothing against the majority of Scots voting and demonstrating what they want. That is the normal mechanism under which matters of this sort should be decided, and it is set out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. I regard this as a matter more of principle than of practice because I am sure that there will be a substantial "Yes" vote. I have no doubt about that, nor have I any doubt about the turn-out. This amendment, coming as it does from those who are in opposition to any form of Assembly, is equivalent to ballot-rigging.
It has taken many and various stages to reach the situation that we are now in. First, a Royal Commission was set up in 1968 or 1969. Then we had two General Elections following not long after the Royal Commission reported. We have had a number of White Papers and statements since March 1974. It is difficult to calculate the number of statements and White Papers, but taken together they probably number seven or eight.
Then we had the Scotland and Wales Bill. It was not even given a vote on the guillotine. It was grudgingly given a Second Reading after a promise that there would be a referendum. When one considers the time that it has taken to get this Bill before the House and the pressure that there has been over many years, it is no wonder that people such as myself greet amendments such as this with great suspicion.
The Labour Party came out of the October election with a pledge to set up an Assembly. After many travails, the Government are still trying to do that. They have been forced by their own supporters, who sometimes have a great influence on the Government, rather than by the official Opposition to change the rules. We shall see more of that tomorrow. The first rule was changed by the Leader of the House, who said that the Government had conceded the referendum. Many Labour Members will admit that this was what persuaded them to vote for the Second Reading of the Scotland and


Wales Bill. When it was first promised, the referendum was to be capable of automatic implementation; no further trigger was required, and the Act would come into force.
That was opposed, mainly by the official Opposition but also by Labour Members, because it was said that that would deprive the House of Commons of its right to make up its own mind. In other words, it was an assertion of the rights of the House of Commons over the rights of the Scottish people.
The next stage was the present Bill, in which the referendum is an essential part of the mechanism for setting up the Assembly. It also has a trigger in the form of an order to be presented to the House, to be discussed and decided by the House in its discretion, taking into account all the factors before it. My party does not accept the right of hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies to engage in Scottish affairs.
It was that situation which the Government were proposing. Yet from there we have moved on to the point where the vote might have to be assessed and analysed, not within the general discretion of the House of Commons but as part of an inhibition which it is hoped to implant in the Bill under the propositions before us. One of those propositions seeks to require 33 per cent. of the electorate to vote for the Assembly. The other requires a 40 per cent. vote in favour.
9.0 p.m.
During the debate, hon. Members have suggested that the figure should be higher, perhaps 45 or 50 per cent. I echo the remarks by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that, given half a chance, the House would probably prefer to give way only to a 100 per cent. vote of the Scottish people demanding an Assembly. The plain truth is that this proposition is supported by and comes from those who are wholly against the Assembly in principle. I believe that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was anxious to put a point to me earlier.

Mr. Buchan: Both the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) appear to complain that the referendum was brought in simply to help

secure a Second Reading for the Bill. I deny that that was the case, but, even if it was, how can the hon. Member then object to it? Surely, he was in favour of the Bill getting a Second Reading.

Mr. Wilson: I do not follow the hon. Member's point. Perhaps he was not following my remarks sufficiently closely.
The most interesting comment in the debate came from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) when, in response to a question from me, he indicated that devolution would affect England too and that, therefore, all hon. Members had an interest in the outcome of the referendum. That was why he wanted the threshold.

Mr. George Cunningham: That was not why I put forward the idea of the threshold. The hon. Member was suggesting that only hon. Members representing Scottish seats should decide whether devolution went through. I say that that is wrong because devolution affects England, and, therefore, all United Kingdom Members should decide the issue. But that is not related in any way to whether there should be a threshold in the referendum.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member appears now to be adding to what he said. Perhaps he is trying to clarify it.
Initially the referendum was unnecessary. It will cost £2 million. It is now becoming an instrument by which the anti-devolutionists are seeking to change the plans. I am perfectly sure that the vote and the turn-out will be quite satisfactory from our point of view, but we are not prepared to accept the rules of the game being changed as we go along. The rules are being changed, because this proposition was not introduced in either the EEC referendum or the Northern Ireland referendum. The Committee is obviously prepared to take a far tougher stance in opposing self-government for Scotland, even in the form of this Scottish Assembly, than it is prepared to take on important matters such as the future government of Northern Ireland and the EEC.

Mr. Raison: I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the attack by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on the idea of a referendum, which I am against. There will not be


time for a debate on the clause, but there will be a vote on it. Can we take it that the hon. Member will not be voting for the clause?

Mr. Wilson: This is an interesting proposition. I am prepared to say immediately to the hon. Member that we shall be voting against these amendments that are before us. But I would draw to his attention the fact that my hon. Friends and I have lodged a very important amendment to the clause which, unfortunately, due to the lack of courage, I suppose, of the Leader of the House in relation to the business, will not be reached. I hope that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will share my sense of loss that we are not to have that important debate. I was delighted to see that the third-question discussion was to be included in the list.

Mr. Buchan: In that case, why did not the hon. Member sign the simple proposition "Do you wish Scotland to become an independent State?" That is dispassionate, accurate and precise. It is not the devious camouflage that he proposes to put into the Bill.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, I take it, was inviting us to sign an amendment which was not properly drawn. Could you, Mr. Murton, draw his attention to the fact that the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and me very clearly and fairly expresses the position? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go away and look at it, and perhaps we shall have a chance to discuss it on Report.
The amendment and the amendment to it are intended to place barriers in the way of the Bill. It does not really matter to some Labour Members by what measure they can trip up the Scotland Bill in order to prevent the existence of the Scottish Assembly. It is all part of the context. If we read the participation of Labour Members in debates, if we hear the views which have been expressed and if we follow the struggling steps of the Bill and the Ministers presenting it in order to get where we are now, I am sure that the Scots electors will share my view that this is a bit of gerrymandering and nothing else.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I begin by apologising to my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Mordern (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for not being present to hear their speeches at the opening of the debate as I was on my way back from Strasbourg to take part in the debate. I am happy to tell the hon, Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who is making disapproving noises from a sedentary position, that I am only in the second eleven of the Council of Europe.
I have, however, listened to the rest of the debate which has taken place since my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury sat down. I am struck that the Government have failed to find a Pack Bencher of their own party who is prepared to support them in resisting these amendments. They have to rely on the support of the SLP and the SNP. I hope that the Government find that company congenial, because I suspect that the situation which has developed over the last three hours of this afternoon and over the last few weeks during which the Bill has been debated will be very much the situation that we shall see on the referendum, in which the Government will find themselves relying on both those wings for their support.
There have just been two speeches during which both speakers have assured us that they are confident that there will be a high and convincing—indeed, crushing—turnout for a "Yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) correctly, he said that at the most pessimistic expectation of the "Yes" vote they would expect delivery of 35 per cent. of the registered electors. Thirty-five per cent. is substantially more than the figure of 33 per cent. to which my hon. Friend and myself have put our names on the Notice Paper. Yet we have been told by both speakers that, despite their confidence that there will be this overwhelming, convincing and crushing result in favour of a "Yes" vote, the modest amendments on the Amendment Paper tonight would be looked on with anger and dismay in Scotland tomorrow were they unfortunate enough to succeed in getting into the Bill.
The Committee might have some difficulty in reconciling those two statements. One of the reasons why it is difficult to reconcile them is that there are objective grounds for doubting whether there will be that kind of turn-out in the forthcoming referendum. First, we have very little evidence of what happens in turn-out in Scotland when there is an election that is confined to Scotland and Wales and is not happening in England, when we have, in effect, an election being conducted in a small part of the State. The only precedents that we have are precedents from local government. As far as turn-out goes, those are not particularly encouraging precedents.
Secondly, anyone who has been around meetings in Scotland or has gone around doorsteps in Scotland and sought to detain people in conversation on devolution must be doubtful as to the turn-out in any referendum on the issue. One can find no end of people who, when asked "Do you want more power for Scotland and do you want the decisions taken here?", will say "Yes". However, if one seeks to detain them in conversation on the matter for a period, say, as long as the time it would take them to walk to the ballot box and back again, one is liable to be regarded as the prize bore of the political scene in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Cook: I give way to my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no significance in that.

Mr. Dalyell: When I have attempted to engage people on the subject of devolution, I have first been shown a dumbfounded look and then they have said something like "By the by, while you are here, what about my tax?" or "What about my drains?"

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's experience is perfectly correct, and it chimes in with that of myself and many of my hon. Friends. It may be that my hon. Friend and I are wrong. It may be that there will be this convincing turn-out and that we have misread the political mood in Scotland. If that is so, no harm will have been done by the amendments.
On the other hand, it would be only prudent for the House of Commons to protect itself from having to take an invidious decision after the referendum

had occurred, as quite clearly it would not be representative of the bulk of opinion in Scotland. It is also only fair to warn now the electorate in Scotland that we shall have regard to turn-out when we come to consider the legislation.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: During these discussions with his constituents and other people in Scotland, has my hon. Friend detected any great enthusiasm for the talking shop in Europe to which he disappears now and again?

Mr. Cook: I perfectly share my hon. Friend's viewpoint that, if I were to seek to detain my electors for 15 minutes to talk about the work of the Council of Europe, there would be considerable misapprehension as to the sanity and the political nous of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central—myself. I am not entirely sure, having been there for only two sessions, that I could succeed in detaining anyone for 15 minutes to talk about the Council of Europe. At least the Council of Europe is an institution of which we have been a member for, I think, 30 years. It is not a live political issue. When it becomes one, I shall certainly be happy to examine the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).

Mr. George Cunningham: It does no harm.

Mr. Cook: That is the kindest interpretation.
What is before us could make a threat to the State of Britain. The claim was made, initially by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and subsequently by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, that we are changing the rules. The trouble is that there are no rules for referendums in Britain. That is the basis of our difficulty. We have blundered into having referendums on Northern Ireland, on the Common Market and now on devolution without ever setting down and saying what should be the rules under which they are conducted.
It would appear that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will maintain, when he replies to the debate, that the rules set out in the Act concerning the referendum on our membership of the Common


Market were rules for all time on referendums in Great Britain. Anyone who sat through the debates on the referendum on our membership of the Common Market will be able to recall countless occasions on which we were assured time and again from the Dispatch Box that it was not a precedent, that it could not be built on in future and that it was not setting down a procedure which would bind Parliament for the future. Indeed, at the time, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—he even more—were seeking to get the Government to accept a commitment to a referendum on devolution. We were very much aware of how difficult it was to build on the Common Market referendum as a precedent for the devolution referendum. We were then given no end of reasons by the Government why the precedent of the Common Market referendum should not be a precedent for anything which might be done over devolution.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: Especially from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Cook: Indeed. Yet now we are told that what the House approved in the case of the Common Market must apply in the case of devolution.

Mr. John Smith: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will say why he thinks that the rules should be different for this referendum.

Mr. Cook: I shall seek to answer my hon. Friend in three ways. First, fortuitously it turned out that the vote in the Common Market referendum was convincing. Indeed, it would have passed with flying colours the test put in the amendment. Had we been faced with a low turn-out and an unconvincing result, many hon. Members would have wished that they had thought about the matter before.

Mr. Sillars: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was, in fact, a low turnout of only 64·5 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 62 per cent. in Scotland? Is he also aware that, whereas in Scotland 58 per cent. said "Yes" and 42 per cent. "No"—which would normally be taken as an overwhelming result in Scotland—the people who voted "Yes" were not more

than 36 per cent. of the total number of those registered to vote?

Mr. Cook: The amendment to which I am speaking refers to the figure of 33 per cent., and that is less than 36 per cent. Even in Scotland, where the vote for "Yes" was lower than in the United Kingdom—and it was a United Kingdom referendum—there was a turn-out which would have been sufficient to pass the test.
I agree that the poll was less than one would expect in a General Election. Here I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, because I think it is unfair to take the figures from a General Election and say that these are normal. At a General Election people are faced with a multitude of choices. We know from experience in Scotland that the more candidates there are—particularly where the SNP intervenes—the higher the turn-out will be. In a referendum the voters have only two choices, and it is not realistic to apply the same test to a referendum as one would apply to a General Election. Without doubt, the result in the Common Market referendum would have passed the test laid down in the amendment. That is the first reason why I do not think that we should be unduly impressed by the Common Market argument.
The second reason is that, quite clearly, the side that was seeking to change the status quo was that which was voting "No". I campaigned at the time for a "No" vote. I am certainly prepared to agree that, taking a rigorous, logical and impartial judgment on the matter, in equity some such provision as this should have been put into the Bill dealing with the Common Market referendum. Indeed, it was fortuitous that we were saved by the high turn-out from the consequence of not having put it in. Had it been put in, it would have had to be tabled by those who were supporters of the "Yes" case. To expect me, as supporting the "No" case, to come forward with an amendment laying a barrier against my own claim would be to expect of me an impartiality approaching sainthood.
Thirdly, I come to the nub of the matter. We are discussing this question in the context of a particular case, a devolution referendum, and parallels have been drawn with what was done in the


Common Market referendum, which was designed for a particular case. We really ought to be stepping back and taking a more detached view of the matter. If we were to get down to thinking about it when there was no referendum imminent, and if we were able to take a detached view, I believe that without doubt we should come to the conclusion that when there is a proposal to change the constitution there ought to be some minimum qualification which must be fulfilled by those seeking that change.
Every other country which conducts referendums has rules as part of the system. We are the only people who do not have them. In most cases those rules stipulate a figure which has to be reached by those who wish to change the status quo. That is a reasonable precaution to take, and I submit to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that it is a democratic principle and one to which we ought to be able to subscribe.
With regard to the two competing amendments, I myself favour 33 per cent. I do so because there are parallels with other countries which use referendums and also because it is a matter of fact that the Governments of 1974 were elected by less than 40 per cent. of the total register. I agree that in logical terms that is perhaps irrelevant and does not strictly apply to referendums, but in terms of the impact of popular perception it will be a powerful argument indeed.
It is important not only that we should have a fair and reasonable test but that that test should be perceived by the electorate as fair and reasonable. I believe that 33 per cent. will be accepted by most reasonable members of the electorate.
However, the important question is not what precise percentage we hit upon tonight. Having heard the rather intricate and convoluted arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and those who constantly interrupted him, I do not think that this Committee is the proper place to go into the details about which percentage we should hit upon. The important question is whether we have any such bar at all or whether we let the Bill go through unamended in any way.
That would be a grave error. One of the reasons is that this might well not be

the last referendum to be put through the House. Here I come back to my hon. Friends who laid such store on not changing the rules. Let us gaze at the crystal ball and look at what might happen after the next General Election. It is just possible that the SNP might succeed in its target of getting a majority of seats in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: Nae chance.

Mr. Cook: I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend's view rather than the hypothetical case I am putting forward. But, after all, it would require a smaller swing between 1974 and the next election to give the SNP that target than it actually succeeded in achieving between 1970 and 1974. What will happen in that event? If I am still au fait with the SNP programme. I believe that SNP Members will retire to Edinburgh and instal themselves as the independent Government of Scotland—not a Government in exile, but a Government in residence. They will then enter negotiations on independence with the Government elected at Westminster.
Of course, it has to be said that SNP Members of Parliament seem to enjoy the atmosphere in the House of Commons and make full use of its facilities. According to their party programme, however, that is what they will do.
What will the Government Front Bench think when that happens? What will they do then? They will do what they have done with every awkward problem with which they have been faced over the past five years and reach for a referendum on independence. Then it will dawn on them that in all previous referendums they rejected a bar on the percentage of the turn-out and voted for the status quo. If it was unsatisfactory to create a devolved Assembly on a turn-out of less than 33 per cent., it would be outrageous if we were to break up the United Kingdom and give independence to Scotland on such a percentage.
We shall therefore find that the Government will bring forward the suggestion that there should be a minimum percentage vote for independence before we consider whether it is the preponderant wish of the Scottish people. What a storm will break about their ears when they are seen to change the very rules


which applied in the referendum on devolution in the very near past.
Had the SNP Bench been writing the script by which independence might some day fall into its laps, it could not have done better than write the brief supplied to the Minister. At least, the Committee tonight has an opportunity to save the Government from one of their own follies. I hope that the Committee will take that opportunity.

Mr. David Knox: I am against these amendments. I found a great deal to agree with in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I am totally opposed to referendums on anything. I was opposed to a referendum on the Common Market, and I am opposed to a referendum on devolution. I believe that the referendum is a dangerous development in our constitution. It undermines the authority of the House of Commons and it was an ill day when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir. H. Wilson) landed us with this concept. But if we are to have referendums we should do all we can to avoid their being mandatory. If the detail contained in these amendments is passed tonight, I believe that it would inevitably tend to make this referendum more mandatory than it would otherwise be.
Comparisons have been made with the referendum on the EEC. Only my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) fully grasped the point in this respect. The constitutional change proposed at the time of the EEC referendum was connected with our coming out—in other words, it was related to a "No" vote. Are the proposers of these amendments saying that to have come out of the EEC over 40 per cent. of the whole electorate, which would mean over 60 per cent. of those voting, would have had to vote "No". I suspect that this is not what they were saying. If 50·1 per cent. of those who voted in the EEC referendum had voted "No", it would have been concluded that the electorate had voted to come out of the Common Market. Therefore, a different set of rules is to apply to the Scotland referendum from

those that were applied to the EEC referendum.
In Scotland, the size of the majority who voted "Yes" in the EEC referendum amounted to 16 per cent. It Amendment (a) were passed, it would have meant that even though 16 per cent. more of the people in Scotland had voted to stay in the Common Market than had voted to come out, we would have to conclude that the answer in Scotland was "No". Most people would find that situation difficult to explain. In other words, under these proposals it would have been assumed that the majority had voted "No". That would not be acceptable in Britain as a whole or in Scotland.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: I hope that I shall not take words out of the hon. Gentleman's mouth, but what has been proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is a wrecking amendment. It is as simple as that.

Mr. George Cunningham: Not at all.

Mr. Knox: I shall leave that matter for the moment.
Let me turn to General Election results. I consider those to be important because such results are mandatory and referendum results are not. If we go through all the General Elections held in this country since 1918, we find that the winning party on every occasion except 1931, would not have met the conditions laid down in Amendment (a). General Election results are rather important. Certain actions can be taken by incoming Governments and those actions are irrevocable.
The present Government obtained 29 per cent. of the votes of the people at the last General Election. Rightly or wrongly—I happen to think wrongly—they have taken certain steps which are irrevocable. They have nationalised the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, and I consider that both these steps are irrevocable. But at that time the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury did not suggest that because the Labour Party received only 29 per cent. of the potential vote those measures should not have been introduced or passed.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is a good debating point, but in a General Election


there is a choice between more than two possibilities. No one candidate is likely to get more than 40 per cent. of the vote. I happened to do so, but not many candidates are in that situation. I claim no credit for that, but I wish to point out that in a referendum one merely has a choice between two possibilities.

9.30 p.m

Mr. Knox: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view on that matter. He said that few hon. Members were elected with more than 40 per cent. of the vote of their total electorate. I do not see why we should not retain for referendums the same consistent rules as we have in other elections.
Both amendments involve fiddling with figures. Some countries may use percentages of above 50 in particular referendums or elections. We have never done so and it seems dangerous that we should set a precedent in this case.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that the referendum would not be mandatory. In theory, that is true, but, in practice, it probably will be mandatory. It would cause immense resentment among Scottish opinion if a majority of Scots voted in favour of devolution and, by the device of one of these amendments, they were deprived of it. I can think of nothing that would drive people to support the separatist cause more than if different rules were applied to the Scots than to anyone else—almost as though it was considered that they were less able to decide for themselves.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a tiny point of detail, is my hon. Friend aware that in two aspects of Scottish legislation—religious instruction and licensing arrangements—we have provisions for referendums with a minimum percentage of the electorate written into the legislation and that the minimum level must be reached before the arrangements can be changed? For example, in my constituency, in Mount Florida ward a substantial proportion of the electorate voted by about two to one for a dry licensing area but their view did not prevail because of the percentage.

The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to face the

Chair? I am missing some of the most valuable contribution that he is making.

Mr. Knox: I do not think that you missed very much, Mr. Murton. My hon. Friend was talking about rather trivial points such as licensing laws.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) suggested that devolution might be stuffed down the unwilling throats of Scottish people because of a large number of abstentions. I doubt very much whether large numbers will abstain in the referendum, but I find it difficult to see why there should suddenly be this excessive respect shown for abstainers. The Labour Party did not show such respect when it was elected at the 1974 General Election, and my own party did not give excessive weight to the views of abstainers when it won the 1970 General Election. I do not complain about that. I believe that both parties were right. If people do not use their vote, they have no right to demand that they should be taken into consideration. It is dangerous to elevate abstainers into a position of great importance.
I shall vote against both amendments because they are a nonsense. They are yet another attempt to make it more difficult for the principle of devolution to be established. I do not believe that the "No" vote will win under any rules—even the rules of the amendments. At the same time, it is ridiculous to seem to make it more difficult to get devolution than would otherwise be the case.
Some of my hon. Friends have made much of the argument that the supporters of devolution oppose the amendments because they are afraid of the outcome. Surely it is the supporters of the amendments who are afraid. They will be happy to impose their will on the basis of a minority of votes cast.

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) thinks that licensing laws are a trivial matter, he is coming dangerously near the category of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), who said that he was not going to support the Scottish football team.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend withdrew that.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked, in a sense reasonably, why we had to create these new rules. I stick on one point. We are deciding, on the basis of wafer thin parliamentary majorities and great divisions in public opinion, lasting matters in a way in which few other countries decide their constitutional arrangements.
In the United States, for example, it requires a two-thirds majority of both Congress and Senate to amend the constitution, or alternatively a convention may be called to propose amendments if two-thirds of the State legislatures request it. In either case, amendments so decided upon become valid only upon ratification by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States or by conventions held in three-quarters of the States. It is for Congress to decide which method of ratification shall be used. Compared with that, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is asking very little.
In New Zealand, it is a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. In Norway, it is two-thirds of all the Members of the Storting sitting together after the first general election following publication of the proposed amendments. In Austria, it is a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. In Belgium, it is a two-thirds majority of the votes cast in both newly-elected Chambers. In Germany, it is two-thirds of all the Members of the Bundestag and two-thirds of the votes cast in the Bundesrat.
We are deciding long-term arrangements on the basis of very slender majorities, whereas most other countries build in many more qualifications than occur in this country. It is for this kind of reason that I must say to the hon. Members for Dundee, East, Leek and any others who are of the same view that the built-in caution of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is a very modest proposal and deserves to be supported.

Mr. Raison: Listening to the debate, the thought has come to me more and more that the referendum is a bad idea in both principle and practice. This debate has exposed the many difficulties. We have had arguments about the size of the majority which should be required,

about who the electorate should be, and so on.
I wish to put to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) one very simple matter. The hon. Gentleman said pretty well what I have said. He said that we did not know what were the ground rules for a referendum and that we were making a muddle. His view is that if the amendments are rejected, it will be a very bad referendum.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: indicated assent.

Mr. Raison: I cannot help thinking back to the hon. Gentleman's brilliant speech on Second Reading in the course of which he made one of the best attacks against this devolution Bill that I have heard. It was a superb speech. However, at the end of it he flabbergasted the House by saying that, nevertheless, he would not vote against the Bill but, instead, would leave the matter to the referendum.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Not "leave".

Mr. Raison: Hand the matter over to the referendum.

Mr. Cook: I did not say that I would leave it to the referendum. I said that I would campaign actively in the referendum, and I have started to fulfil that commitment already by doing some of the preparatory work. The argument that I advanced in that speech was that there was no interest in my constituency or in Scotland in such an Assembly. If I am proved wrong in the referendum, I accept that the House of Commons will have to produce devolution proposals.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman launched a strong attack against the Bill, and we all thought that he was about to say that he would vote against it, but, instead, he said that he would leave the matter to be decided by the people in the referendum.
Having heard how unsatisfactory the referendum is, especially in the guise that we are likely to see it, will not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends recognise that we do not have to defeat this proposal in the referendum? We can do it on Third Reading. That is the proper way to defeat the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: I had not wanted to take part in today's debate, because we had


hoped to make progress and come on to what is now the only matter with which we should be concerned—the question of the break-up of the United Kingdom. That means of necessity a second question in the referendum sooner or later. Therefore, only one question faces us, whether we decide now to have a second question or decide to have a referendum on the subject at a later date, when our own foolish actions have pushed us into that disaster.
I have sat here impatiently, coming from my own private apocalyptic version of Dante's Inferno to witness something of the playgrounds of Versailles in 1789 all around me. We are playing with the issue. The matter has gone far beyond a joke, and perhaps the time for serious speeches has also passed. I shall deal with the technicalities in a moment.
I wish first to correct some of the arguments about the campaign for a referendum. That campaign was not launched in order to get the Bill through its Second Reading, though that may have been the reason for the acceptance of the referendum. I am astonished when the SNP and the SLP criticise acceptance of the referendum because they claim that that was done to assist, as it did, in achieving the Second Reading. I thought that they were in favour of the Bill, and they should have been pleased about the referendum.
Secondly, the campaign was not launched in order to have a referendum on devolution. There is no absolute constitutional case for a referendum on devolution. The referendum argument was launched over the second question, the question of independence. That which affects the sovereignty of this House and the State and alters the relationship between those who are elected and those who elect us, the contract that we make at each election, provides an absolute case for a referendum.
We were not sent to this place to set in motion on our own part moves leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom. If that is to happen, the decision must be removed from us, because we have no rights on that question. We have rights only to rule and govern as we agree in our contract with the electorate for the United Kingdom. A decision to break up the United Kingdom can be made only

by the people. The argument about the supremacy of this place and the sovereignty of the State and the argument about the relationship of "we" the elected and "they" the electors both pointed to the necessity for a referendum.
The referendum was then inevitably linked to the question of devolution. It was almost a year after I launched the campaign for a referendum before I said "I accept that in the public view the question of independence is also linked to the question of devolution. Let us then have a double referendum."
I argued that matter on the ground that, while there was no absolute case for a referendum on devolution. the new kind of constitution that we were setting up could be so flawed that it would of itself precipitate the political crisis that would crack up Britain, and that the only way to deal with such a flaw was to have the general will behind the decision, to make the constitution work. This links with the amendments.
The argument became one of getting the general will and support not just for devolution but for only devolution, for an Assembly, whatever might happen in five or 10 years after the referendum. Otherwise, I now believe, we were open to the accidental breaking up of the United Kingdom. That was the proposition that was advanced, one that I have argued for three years in one form or another. Therefore, it points inexorably to the logic of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). If there is to be an acceptance of the Assembly so that it will be allowed to work, there must be a clear demonstration by the Scottish people that they want it.
9.45 p.m.
Unfortunately—and this is the difficulty—life is not like that. We do not proceed only by logic. If anything convinced me of the wrongness of these amendments it was the speeches of the hon. Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The hon. Member for South Ayrshire—I am sorry that he is not here, but he should have known that I would take him up on this—made a trivial speech. It was an extraordinary speech but an


important one from which to draw conclusions. He said that people did not like making decisions and that during the Common Market referendum he had found that people had said to him "You should be making the decisions." I agree with him. That did happen. But it cannot rest there.
We cannot say to people "You have done your duty for the next five years." It is not right that people should reject decision-making. They should have to face up to matters and make decisions. It is an extremely élitist position to adopt this attitude. The hon. Member concluded from that experience that the people of Scotland—and I love Scotland, although people might not think so from what the SNP says about me—could be manipulated by those who could depress election results. The point here is that the hon. Member's speech not only displayed a contempt for our people but was typified by a kind of falseness or deceit.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire based his view upon his experience and activities as an election agent when he says he deliberately did not go into Tory areas to drum up whatever Labour support there might be there on election day, thus producing a depressing effect. What he is forgetting is that, by the same token, the Tory workers do not go into the Labour areas. Each side tries to stimulate its own supporters. That is not manipulation; it is part of normal political campaigning, and it balances out. To use such an argument is insulting and deceitful.
A further argument the hon. Member used was that we might not have a full register. That argument was properly answered by those speaking to the amendments. The speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was paltry. But it illustrated the point which has emerged during the debate in the speeches of the hon. Member for Dundee, East and from my own side, and from the Tory Benches. In every case those who were against devolution were for the formula while those who were for devolution were against the formula. The argument had ceased to be based on logic. The logic is undoubtedly on the side of my hon. Friends who support the amendment.
The argument became one concerning politics and the politics that emerged from the SNP and the SLP were the politics of cheating. They were saying "We shall cry foul." They know that there is no foul in these amendments. They were also saying that that is the campaign which they will conduct in Scotland. I believe that they will succeed. They already have the centre pages of one newspaper almost in their pockets, divided between the SNP and the SLP. The writer of those pages will also shout foul. I believe that the main popular Press of Scotland will shout foul. Not only will it not listen to the arguments of logic; it will not listen to the arguments. The popular Press has to sell, and to be popular in the sense of selling it has to be populist in its policies. That means following the SNP and SLP line and looking for the easy interpretation. [Interruption.] That is not an argument against the referendum; it is an argument against giving weapons to those who would challenge the validity of the referendum. [Interruption.] if my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) wishes to intervene, I will give way.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting from a sedentary position. The fact is that my hon. Friend knows and I know that the SNP does not carry out what it claims to be its policy on the referendum. Whatever the conditions and whatever the rules laid clown the SNP will cry "Foul." There is no escaping that.

Mr. Buchan: Of course the SNP will cry "Foul", but that is not the point. The point is that many people, given the situation of a voting formula will believe it to be a foul, whereas very few people will believe it to be so after the event, without that formula. I heard very few people shouting "Foul" after the Common Market decision, including those within the SNP.

Mr. George Cunningham: Or after the guillotine.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument carefully. I must put it to him that he does not solve his dilemma by rejecting the formula in the amendment. He may only delay that


formula. What will he do should the referendum be held without the amendment being made part of the Bill and should the result be that less than 33 per cent., for example vote "Yes", but that represents a majority? What will he do then? Will he say that that is not sufficient for devolution to take place? If he is minded to take that view come that event, will not the cries of "Foul" be increased tenfold in comparison with what they would be if the amendment were accepted and became part of the Bill?

Mr. Buchan: I am saying that by accepting the amendment we shall create a situation that will be entirely counter-productive from my hon. Friend's point of view. I believe that there would be a great mobilisation of people who would accept that there was cheating. I do not think that there is cheating in the formulae. I think that they are right. However, we have not established these rules in advance.
My second contention is the third pillar on which I pledged my support—the question which must of necessity at some point happen so that the whole argument can be put forward.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that his party does not accept the right of English Members to engage in Scottish affairs. However, his party is willing to support the Tory Party in thrusting a food price increase down the throats of the people of England, and to produce an amendment that went three times as far as the Tory Party's amendment. Over 12 months the SNP's amendment would have increased food prices by 6p in the pound. It advocated a 21·5 per cent. increase in the devaluation of the green pound. I note that SNP Members are shaking their heads in dissent, but that was the effect of their amendment.
The SNP is willing to thrust a food price increase down the throats of the people of England, yet it is not willing for the people of England to participate in the referendum. They have every right to do so, but I believe that the people of England are too intelligent, tolerant and understanding to exercise that right. Indeed, they should not exercise it. I wish that the hon. Member for Dundee, East would show the same tolerance that has been shown by those with whom Scotland has worked over the past two and a half centuries.

Mr. Pym: After three hours of debate I hope that it will be thought appropriate for me to make a contribution to the Committee's discussion, especially since at an earlier stage this afternoon I did my best to accelerate the progress of earlier amendments in which I was interested so that the Committee could move on to a range of amendments, including this group, to which it attached great importance. I hope that in the spirit that was shown at the beginning of the day it might be possible for us to reach a conclusion on the amendment.
It has been an extremely interesting and important debate, and I do not think that three hours was too long. I am bound to say that at the end of the discussion we can only reach the conclusion that the referendum does not have very many friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) described it as a very bad idea. I think that he is right. The referendum has become an unhappy instrument of political convenience. No one has spoken in favour of it today.
The overwhelming majority of speeches, with some exceptions, have been in favour of the amendment and of creating some threshold. Only a minority have been against it.
I agree with the view expressed by many hon. Members that we should not make such a major change as this, with all the possible implications for the future, on the basis of a simple majority, perhaps on a very low poll. There have been powerful arguments for requiring that a question of this kind should have "massive support". I think those were the words used by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Expressions such as "an overwhelming majority" have been used. The reason why hon. Members want that kind of result before agreeing to go ahead with the Bill is that it is, in essence, irreversible. Indeed, the Minister of State referred to the Bill as
a constitutional change of quite exceptional scope and importance".—[Official Report, 10th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 1795.]
I do not think that anyone would disagree with that statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), who referred to the practice

for General Elections, should take that into account. This referendum will not be like a General Election. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) pointed out that essentially the decision will be irrevocable. That is the difference. That is why thought is being given to this matter on a different basis.
The issue before the Committee is not whether there should be a simple majority, possibly on a low poll, but whether we should write precise conditions and exact percentages into the Bill. If we write conditions into the Bill, we shall have to live with them and no doubt take close notice of them. It is no more than a statement of the obvious to say that it would be difficult—even impossible—to alter or to adjust those precise conditions at a later stage.
If the conditions are met, or are nearly met, however closely, will the House of Commons feel that it is difficult not to proceed on the basis of the figures written into the Bill? We shall de facto, if not de jure, have restricted the extent to which the referendum is consultative. We may not have turned the consultative referendum into a mandatory referendum —indeed, we shall not have done so in any legal sense—but we shall have created for ourselves a restrictive covenant to the otherwise wide open nature of the consultative referendum.
I think that we are quite justified in saying that a simple majority will not do. The argument that there should be a minimum provision is justified. Considering experience in other countries, we know that constitutional changes are frequently required to be carried through only after a two-thirds majority has been obtained. Many hon. Members have referred to that matter. In the United States, a majority of individual States and their legislatures is required.
I think that we must be careful about establishing a figure which might be seen as a precedent for future referendums, if such are ever proposed. It is only realistic to suggest that we must consider the possibility of more referendums.
We should not decide a question of such tremendous importance as this in the context of a three-hour debate. There should be plenty of time to debate the


issues before us today. After all, four days were allowed to consider the implications of the referendum on whether we should stay in the EEC. The context of this debate should be a referendum Bill in which all the issues and implications underlying such a proposal could be considered, not the constricted space of a guillotine on this particular Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) would agree with me about that. If we want to pick a particular figure, we should have time to consider what that particular figure should be.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I am most concerned that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should refer to a particular figure. Is he suggesting that we should, for the first time in this country, begin to put limits on democracy itself, to begin to establish minimum standards of democracy? That is what has worried me for the last three hours, and that is why I want these amendments to be defeated overwhelmingly.

Mr. Pym: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will allow me to develop my argument because it is an important matter. I was referring to the particular circumstances of the Bill and of this referendum. Placed as we are in this difficulty we must consider it in this context, however wrong we think it is. If we are to consider a particular figure, whether it be a majority of the electorate, a majority of those voting or a combination of both, there is no obvious or magic figure.
Let us suppose that we chose the figure of 40 per cent. of the electorate. What would happen if the actual figure was half a per cent. above or below that figure? Would we be prepared to stick strictly to that figure? Hon. Members might feel that their judgment after the referendum would be constrained by such a figure. Even though the amendment says that an order must be laid which the House would be entitled to reject, a limitation on our freedom of judgment might arise by having a set figure.
If we select a figure, it must have some standing, status and meaning. It will tend to be regarded as a minimum figure and as a threshold that must be passed. If it is passed, agreement must be

assumed by those who voted. It must be a fair figure and be seen to be so.
We have heard much about the referendum on our entry into the European Community which was, as a matter of fact and history, passed on the basis that would be attained under the amendment on a United Kingdom basis. It is fair to ask whether we should accept as tough a test as that, or a tougher one, for a referendum applying to a possible Assembly for Scotland.
There are strong reasons for thinking that we should argue for a stronger test for an Assembly for Scotland because, unlike the European issue, there is no substantial measure of agreement between the parties. That is perhaps the understatement of the year because there are passionate differences between the parties, although the House of Commons as a whole hates this Bill.
Unlike in the European referendum, the English will have no vote, as we decided rightly or wrongly earlier today, despite the fact that the Bill raises all the issues of the voting rights of Scottish Members on English matters. In any case, is it right that we should be concerned only about the size of the majority? Should we not also consider the spread of the vote? What happens if one part of Scotland votes strongly in favour of an Assembly and the rest votes strongly against? What will the figures mean if we are not to be able to use our judgment after the referendum has taken place? I want to take into account all the circumstances.
We certainly should have an indication that a decisive or overwhelming expression of support is required, but I am not convinced that we should write into the Bill exact percentages or detailed conditions. Whether or not the conditions are written into the Bill, the House of Commons will have to decide whether to accept the order. That, however, will be a fine judgment. I am not against writing into the Bill some indication of what "overwhelming majority" means. But that is not an easy thing to do.
On balance, I feel that the House of Commons should leave itself in the position of being able to exercise its judgment in the light of all the circumstances rather than to write a precise figure into the Bill.


But in no way does that alter my view that if the Bill were to be passed by Parliament, to be put into effect after a referendum it would certainly require more than a simple majority of a small percentage of the poll. That would not be acceptable. The amendments, however, deal with exact figures.
The context of this debate should not be in the circumstances of a particular referendum in relation to a particular Bill. To decide an issue such as this, an apparently simple issue—it may well be presented to the public as such—but in fact a complex matter with deep implications which we have been elected here to consider, under the pressure of the guillotine is one good example of how the Government are abusing and neglecting their responsibility for the good and responsible working of this Parliament. I criticise them very much for their whole handling of the matter. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion in identifying the root cause and the main reason why the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill.
Those are my views on this very important matter. If the people of Scotland decide that this is what they want to do I believe that there must be an overwhelming majority in favour of it. We must take that into account rather than be absolutely limited by a fixed and settled percentage.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Mr. Canavan.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Sir Myer. You will understand the sensitivity that the Committee might feel in the light of exchanges this afternoon when it clearly indicated that it would wish the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to have an opportunity to move his Amendment No. 149. My point of order is this. If a further speech is made continuing the debate and the Minister of States does not take the opportunity to speak at this stage, I hope that you would feel able, if the debate was running on, to consider sympathetically a closure motion in order to allow the Committee to express its will.

The First Deputy Chairman: As far as I am aware, from having just entered the Chamber, the Committee is anxious to come to a decision. I have an assurance from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that he will speak for only five minutes.

Mr. Canavan: In view of what you have said, Sir Myer, I shall be as brief as possible. I only wish that other hon. Members who are concerned about their own amendments would show the same consideration for amendments tabled by my hon. Friend and myself which, unfortunately, we shall also not have time to discuss.
I am not a new convert to a referendum on this issue. A few months after I entered the House, I mentioned on the Floor of the House the possibility of a referendum to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are discussing not the question of a referendum, but the percentage of those who take part.

Mr. Canavan: Yes, Sir Myer, but other hon. Members have been allowed to make general comments about the referendum. The then Prime Minister was a belated convert to the idea of a referendum on the Common Market, and he became a belated convert to the idea of a referendum on this important issue.
The reason why we should have a referendum is simple. The people of Scotland are entitled to as much Home Rule or independence, as they want; that is not in question. What is in question is how much Home Rule or self-determination is in their own best interests.
But if we are to have a referendum and it is to be a useful, democratic instrument, it must be seen to be fair. The most recent example that we have had—indeed, the only precedent that most of the people who will be qualified to vote on the proposed referendum have had—is the referendum on the Common Market. There was no minimum percentage turn-out or anything like that laid down for the Common Market referendum. If the Government are seen now to be changing the rules in this referendum, many of the people of Scotland will think that this changing of the rules as we go along is blatantly unfair.
On the question of a minimum turn-out or a minimum percentage of people voting for a particular result, as proposed in the amendment, it is sheer cheek, arrogance and hypocrisy. In this House of Commons, I understand that all that is needed is 40 Members to turn up in the Lobbies in order that a vote be valid. My arithmetic makes that, taking into account that there are 635 Members of Parliament, approximately 6 per cent. of the people who are qualified to vote in this place. It needs only 6 per cent. of them for a vote to be valid. Yet some people in this place have the cheek to say to the people of Scotland that, unless a minimum percentage of 33 or 40 per cent. vote "Yes" in the referendum, the result will be invalid.
If these or any of the amendments are passed, it will help to undermine the basis of democracy in this country, because one of the basic tenets of democracy in this country is that it is the people who bother to turn up to vote who should influence decision-making. Yet, if the amendment were passed, the people who do not even bother to turn up to vote, those who lie in their beds through laziness, those who sit at home, those who could not care less, the lethargic and the apathetic, would have virtually as much influence, and possibly more, on the result of the referendum as the people who bother to turn up.
I am disgusted to see that there are some of my hon. Friends on the so-called Left of the Labour movement supporting this, because they are indirectly supporting the idea of the Tories, who are constantly complaining—in the trade union movement, for example—that only a small number of people turn up for branch meetings and, therefore, influence decisions. That is the kind of propaganda that they are swallowing in coming out and proposing and possibly voting for amendments such as this.
I finish by saying that I think that a lot of the debate has been conducted on a purely hypothetical basis. I do not think that the low turn-out which many people suppose will happen will occur. The vast majority of the people of Scotland will, I think, turn out to vote in the referendum. I can think of many cases in which they have turned out en masse before. In my constituency, for example. 80 per cent. turned out to vote at the

General Election. At the local elections in May, 67 per cent. turned out in the ward in which I live.
I am quite sure that if hon. Members on whichever side of the campaign they happen to be—conduct the campaign in a fair and democratic manner and try to get their supporters to come out to vote, the need for the amendments will be seen to be non-existent. That is why I say that to pass the amendments would help to destroy democracy in this country. It would help to encourage the lethargic and the apathetic rather than the people who participate in democracy.

Mr. John Smith: The Committee has spent a fair amount of time on the amendments, as I know, having listened to almost all the speeches—every speech, if not every part of every speech made in the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will have noticed that the debate started before the time at which it was originally planned.

Mr. George Cunningham: It would not have done if my hon. Friend had not given in.

Mr. John Smith: As my hon. Friend well knows, the time for debates in this Chamber is not dictated by the Government. The time for debates is largely dictated by people who speak from the Back Benches.

Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend has just said the opposite.

Mr. Smith: I have listened to many debates on the Bill, and I regret that we were not able to reach some of the amendments. I wish that we could discuss every amendment.
This clutch of amendments, though, seeks to amend the clause of the Bill which deals with the referendum by inserting minimum figures required to be achieved before a result is effected in practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife Central (Mr. Hamilton) has put forward an amendment of a slightly different character from that of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). As I read the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife Central,


it does not argue that the percentage should be of the electorate entitled to vote. His amendment is related to those who actually cast their vote.
10.15 p.m.
I can understand that a little more than I understand the argument put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Cook), who operate on a different principle. They say that the percentage they wish to insert should be of those entitled to vote.
That is a quite remarkable proposition. Those who know anything about politics can grasp it very quickly. My hon. Friends want to get the abstainers on their side. They want counted on their side in the referendum people who do not cast their vote. Behind the ingenuity of some of the arguments and the juggling with figures and comparisons, one can see that that is what they want.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: That is quite right.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend says that, but those who put forward the proposition did not argue or admit that.

Mr. Cook: I did.

Mr. Smith: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon if he did so.
The underlying proposition behind the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central is that the percentage should be of those entitled to vote. Therefore, that means that people who do not cast their vote are counted in the analysis. I do not think that my hon. Friends would dispute that.
The difficulty about that—this is relevant—is that we did not have any such principle or any such percentage when we had the referendum on the European Community. When that has been pointed out, some hon. Members have said "Oh, well, it was not necessarily a precedent and we are entitled to change our minds." However, the interesting thing is that in the debates on the Common Market referendum Bill it does not appear to have been discussed. I have checked on this matter. Two new clauses were moved. One of them was withdrawn, and

there was a procedural wrangle about that. But the point was not argued in the course of the debates on the referendum Bill.
If it was such an obvious requirement for a referendum, I wonder why the hon. Members who are now urging the point in the case of the referendum on devolution did not have the foresight to do that in the debates on the referendum Bill. It was all the more important to do that on the referendum Bill since it concerned the first referendum that this country had had.

Mr. Heffer: It is a pity that they did not do so.

Mr. Smith: It is interesting that anyone who has argued for this so vigorously —indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said that the proposition in his amendment was so self-evident that no one could dispute it —should not have had it occur to him as obvious when we were discussing the referendum Bill.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: It did occur.

Mr. Smith: Well, my hon. Friend did not do much about it. We could have seen an amendment if there had been one on the Notice Paper. My hon. Friend has offered an explanation, but I do not think it meets the point that it was open to him as a Member of Parliament and a member of the Committee of the whole House dealing with the referendum Bill to table an amendment, which would have been consistent with that which he has tabled now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it important?"] I shall say why it is important. If one changes the rules between one referendum and another, people will ask very searching questions as to why that change has been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have already been changed."]
Secondly, if there are people participating in the referendum who say that it is unfair that the rules were changed between the Common Market referendum and the devolution referendum, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has a great deal of validity. To have people arguing that a mechanism was operating in the organisation of the referendum count which was unfair to either side


would be a most unfortunate thing during the referendum.
There have been many criticisms of many of the things that happened during the Common Market referendum, the most common of which is the disproportionate amount of money which seemed to be available to one side as opposed to the other. But I do not think that anyone quarrelled with the question or with the way in which the vote was counted. That was also a consultative referendum.
I think, therefore, that there will require to be a much more convincing explanation than has been offered by the supporters of the amendment as to why the change has to be made. I do not think that they have made such a case.

Mr. Amery: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I really cannot follow the grotesque argument that he is putting forward. It is not a question of trying to compare one referendum with another. Will he tell us why he is afraid of submitting the Bill to make sure that there really is a substantial element in Scotland which wants devolution?

Mr. Smith: Certainly I am not afraid, nor are the Government, to submit the Bill to a referendum. That is why we have the referendum clause in the Bill. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman during his speech about the Common Market parallel, he said that he took a quite different approach at the time of the earlier referendum. He took what he described as the "Philosopher King" approach—in other words, "I think I am right and, therefore, I do not need to bother about having a referendum. I am so convinced of the merits that I do not need a referendum". But the fact is that there was a referendum on the Common Market, and the right hon. Gentleman did not take any opportunity to change it.
I know that it was said that there was unlikely to be another referendum, and that many hon. Members were suspicious of this and said at the time that there might well be another. Who is to know? There might be yet another. I do not know. The last suggestion came from the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who promised to have

referendums on industrial disputes. That would lead us to having many more than were ever contemplated before.
If I do not persuade the supporters of the amendment that there is a great deal of practical importance in there being—[Interruption.] I have listened to all the speeches in the debate, and I am entitled to reply to the points that were made. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West made a speech in which I thought he conceded too much, in a sense, to the proposers of the amendment when he referred to their logic. But he also made the point, which is of very great importance, that the electorate participating in the referendum would have to feel that it was fair.
Why is it that the supporters of the amendment want to make a change? After all, it is a consultative referendum. There was mention of the possibility of a very low poll. I do not think that there will be. But if, as was suggested, only 13 per cent. voted for one side and 12 per cent. for the other, that would be a matter of which Parliament would take account. I repeat that it is a consultative referendum. Given that it is a consultative referendum, what is the case for building in any particular proportion of votes?
I think that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) more or less conceded this point. He approached the matter in his usual critical way, but I did not understand him to commend the amendment to the Committee. He was making some of the same points as I have been seeking to make to the Committee, albeit in a different way. It is not necessary for me to repeat them, and I do not have the capacity to do so. [Interruption.] I have not been speaking very long having regard to the number of speeches that were made and also, if I may say so, to the length of some of them. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present the whole time, but undoubtedly there have been several fairly lengthy speeches. [Interruption.] It is an important matter, because it goes right to the heart of the conduct of the referendum. I fear that if these amendments were carried there would be controversy.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The Minister would lose.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend says, from a sedentary position, that I would lose. It is the people who are against devolution who are seeking to change the rules on this occasion. Far from its indicating that I am afraid of losing the referendum, I believe it indicates that some of my hon. Friends are afraid of losing it.

Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Should not the Minister of State be directed by you to show some sensitivity to the desire of the Committee that it should have a Division—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. After roughly four years' experience in the Chair, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I could not wish for a better power to be granted to the occupant of the Chair. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Mr. John Smith: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) showed a great deal of concern for other hon. Members during some of the speeches that he has made during the course of devolution legislation, some of which were at excessive length.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am prepared to entertain that request whenever the Minister of State has finished.

Mr. John Smith: I am seeking to bring my speech to a close. If hon. Members did not interrupt me on points of order, I would be able to get to the end of it.
I was asked a number of questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central. First, what is involved in the amendment is that we would be changing the rules. Secondly, no convincing reason has been given for such a change in the rules. In those circumstances, it would be unwise if the Committee were to accept the amendment. I hope that the Committee will accept the referendum in the way in which it is provided in the Bill and will vote against the amendment.

Question put, That Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 166. Noes 151.

Division No. 78]
AYES
[10.27 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lawson, Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrell W. E.(Wallsend)
Lester, Jim (Booster)


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gov, Ian (Eastbourne)
Loveridge, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Luce, Richard


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grylls, Michael
MacGregor, John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Budgen, Nick
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mather, Carol


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clegg, Walter
Hayhoe, Barney
Mayhew, Patrick


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hayman. Mrs Helene
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cooke. Robert (Bristol W)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John


Cope, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Costain, A. P.
Hodgson, Robin
Mills, Peter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Moate, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Molyneaux, James


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Monro, Hector


Doig, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Moonman, Eric


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunter, Adam
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, Geraint


Dunlop, John
James, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Durant, Tony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Emery, Peter
Jopling, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Newens, Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Kimball, Marcus
Newton, Tony


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Nott, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman
Ogden. Eric




Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sainsbury, Tim
Stokes, John


Palmer, Arthur
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Parker, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Percival, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Shepherd, Colin
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Sims, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Raison, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Rathbone, Tim
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhodes James, R.
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Richardson, Miss Jo
Speed, Keith
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spence, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Spriggs, Leslie



Robinson, Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stainton, Keith
Mr. William Hamilton and


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr Tim Renton.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Armstrong, Ernest
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Rooker, J. W.


Ashton, Joe
Henderson, Douglas
Rose, Paul B.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hooson, Emlyn
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rowlands, Ted


Bates, Alf
Hunter, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Beith, A. J.
Janner, Greville
Sever, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Johnson, Waller (Derby S)
Sillars, James


Buchan Norman
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stallard, A. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kaufman, Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Campbell, Ian
Kerr, Russell
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Canavan, Dennis
Knox, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Carmichael, Neil
Lambie, David
Stott, Roger


Cartwright, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Luard, Evan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Corbett, Robin
MacCormick, Iain
Thompson, George


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Crawford, Douglas
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Crouch, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Cryer, Bob
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davidson, Arthur
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Deakins. Eric
Magee, Bryan
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Watt, Hamish


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, James (Pollok)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Freud Clement
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


George, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Orbach, Maurice
Young, David (Bolton E)


Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Graham, Ted
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. James Hamilton and


Harper, Joseph
Penhaligon, David
Mr. James Tinn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the proposed Amendment, as amended, be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. I am told—and I have seen this—that there are hon. Members in the "No" Lobby who are sitting down and not being counted.

The First Deputy Chairman: What happens in the Division Lobbies is not a matter for me. I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to find out what is happening in the Lobby.

Hon. Members: Cheating.

Mr. George Cunningham: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Myer. Will you give instructions that, if the Tellers are not able to report almost immediately, they should be sent for to report the figures that have so far passed them?

The First Deputy Chairman: I am awaiting the report of the Serjeant at

Arms, and as soon as I am in possession of it I shall inform the Committee.

Mr. William Hamilton: (seated and covered): I inform you, Sir Myer, that I have seen Members in the Lobby—there are at least five of them—flatly refusing to come out.

Hon. Members: Cheat.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Serjeant at Arms has made his report, and I instruct the Tellers for the Noes to bring the figures to the Chair.

Hon. Members: Cheat.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 168, Noes 142.

Division No. 79]
AYES
[10.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Hodgson, Robin
Palmer, Arthur


Berry, Hon Anthony
Holland, Philip
Parker, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Bradford, Rev Robert
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, R.


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Budgen, Nick
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus
Robinson, Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lamont, Norman
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Costain, A. P.
Lawson, Nigel >
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Loveridge, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sinclair, Sir George


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunlop, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Durant, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Flannery, Martin
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fox, Marcus
Mendelson, John
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Torney, Tom


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moonman, Eric
Weatherill, Bernard


Grist, Ian
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wiggin, Jerry


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Winterton, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newens, Stanley



Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John
Mr. William Hamilton and


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Tim Renton.


Hayhoe, Barney






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Rose, Paul B.


Archer Rt Hon Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Armstrong, Ernest
Henderson, Douglas
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ashton, Joe
Hooley, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hooson, Emlyn
Sedgemore, Brian


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Howelis, Geraint (Cardigan)
Sever, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Janner, Greville
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Bates, Alf
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Bean, R. E.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Beith, A. J.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sillars, James


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spence, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Russell
Steel, Rt Hon David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Knox, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Luard, Evan
Strang, Gavin


Carmichael, Neil
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cartwright, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
McElhone, Frank
Thompson, George


Concannon, Rt Hon John
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Corbett, Robin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


Crawford, Douglas
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Crouch, David
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Cryer, Bob
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Weetch, Ken


Edge, Geoff
Meacher, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, James (Pollok)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mitchell, Austin
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ford, Ben
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Forrester, John
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Freud, Clement
Pardoe, John
Woodall, Alec


George, Bruce
Park, George
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Golding, John
Penhaligon, David



Grant, John (Islington C)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Harper, Joseph
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, in page 38, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A) If the answers given in the referendum show that the majority of the persons giving valid votes in the Orkney Islands area or the majority of such persons in the Shetland Islands area do not wish effect to be given to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing that in respect of that area

or. as the case may require, those areas the Act shall not apply, and providing also for the establishment of a commission to recommend such changes in the government of that area or those areas as may be desirable.'.

A damned close-run thing, if I may say so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 204, Noes 118.

Division No. 80]
AYES
[10.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Awdry, Daniel
Brittan, Leon
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buck, Antony
Cope, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Budgen, Nick
Costain, A. P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crouch, David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam




Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kimball, Marcus
Rathbone, Tim


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, R.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunlop, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


English, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loveridge, John
Rose, Paul B.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Colin


Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maynard, Miss Joan
Sinclair, Sir George


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mendelson, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Skinner, Dennis


Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Hannam, John
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moonman, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stokes, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Higgins, Terence L.
Newton, Tony
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hodgson, Robin
Nott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holland, Philip
Ogden, Eric
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Hooson, Emlyn
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hordern, Peter
Orbach, Maurice
Watkins, David


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Palmer, Arthur
Wiggin, Jerry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pardoe, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parker, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Penhaligon, David
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Younger, Hon George


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Prior, Rt Hon James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. J. Grimond and


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy
Mr. A. J. Beith


Kerr, Russell






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Lambie, David


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
Luard, Evan


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McCartney, Hugh


Bates, Alf
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacCormick, Iain


Bean R. E.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
George, Bruce
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Golding, John
Madden, Max


Campbell, Ian
Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Corbett, Robin
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Henderson, Douglas
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Crawford Douglas
Hooley, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Mitchell, Austin


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)




Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spence, John
Welsh, Andrew


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
White, James (Pollok)


Noble, Mike
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Oakes, Gordon
Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Park, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thompson, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Sedgemore, Brian
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Sever, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Ward, Michael
Mr. Ted Graham and


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Weetch, Ken
Mr. A. W. Stallard.


Snape, Peter
Wellbeloved, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I give notice that I wish to raise a point of order with you when you have completed the painful business that the House of Commons has imposed upon you?

It being after Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the

Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 18.

Division No. 81]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Janner, Greville


Allaun, Frank
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Tony
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
English, Michael
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Awdry, Daniel
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jopling, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin
Kaufman, Gerald


Bean, R. E.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell


Beith, A. J.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kimball, Marcus


Benyon, W.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamont, Norman


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biggs, Davison, John
Forrester, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lawrence, Ivan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freud, Clement
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Loveridge, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Luard, Evan


Bottomley, Peter
Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Buchan, Norman
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCartney, Hugh


Buck, Antony
Ginsburg, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Glyn, Dr Alan
McElhone, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Golding, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Campbell, Ian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Grist, Ian
Magee, Bryan


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grylls, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Concannon, J. D.
Hannam, John
Marten, Neil


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cope, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Water
Mather, Carol


Corbett, Robin
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mawby, Ray


Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mayhew, Patrick


Cryer, Bob
Heffer. Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hodgson, Robin
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Holland, Philip
Mendelson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hordern, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mills, Peter


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman


Doig, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mitchell, Austin


Dormand, J. D.
James, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)




Moate, Roger
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stokes, John


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Strang, Gavin


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rowlands, Ted
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sainsbury, Tim
Tinn, James


Neubert, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Newens, Stanley
Sever, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Newton, Tony
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Noble, Mike
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Ogden, Eric
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watkins, David


Orbach, Maurice
Shepherd, Colin
Weetch, Ken


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wellbeloved, James


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
White, James (Pollok)


Pardoe, John
Sims, Roger
Whitlock, William


Park, George
Sinclair, Sir George
Wiggin, Jerry


Parker, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Penhaligon, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rathbone, Tim
Spriggs, Leslie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Sproat, Iain
Woodall, Alec


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stainton, Keith
Woof, Robert


Rhodes James, R.
Stallard, A. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon David



Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. Alf Bates and


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Peter Snape.




NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Lambie, David
Watt, Hamish


Budgen, Nick
MacCormick, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd


Crawford, Douglas
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Spence, John



Henderson, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Higgins, Terence L.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mrs. Winifred Ewing and


Hooson, Emlyn
Thompson, George
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 17

REFERENDUM

Amendments made: No. 583, in page 89, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—
'9. Every regional and islands council shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for its area; and if the council of any region or the counting officer for any region so requests, the council of any district situated in that region shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for that region.'.

No. 624, in page 89, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
'Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in Scotland on the question whether the Scotland Act 1978 should be put into effect '.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The whole Committee will be

aware of the disgraceful incident that took place in the Division Lobby earlier. We remember that earlier today, when the Government were criticised for what they tried to do on the first business this afternoon, they tried to resist accusations of skulduggery. What occurred in the Division Lobby less than an hour ago warranted a description infinitely worse than that. It was a deliberate attempt to try to frustrate a subsequent vote when the Committee was operating under the allocation of time procedure.
We are deeply indebted to you, Sir Myer, for taking the steps which you felt to be justified. I should like to ask you whether you are prepared to tell the Committee the details of the report you received from the Serjeant at Arms, whom you thought fit to ask to go and look into the Lobby. As you will know, there are precedents for what you did and there are precedents for subsequent action which the House decided to take on earlier occasions.
I ask whether you would feel able to tell the Committee what the Serjeant at


Arms reported to you, because there was a very strong feeling in all parts of the Committee that what happened was a deliberate attempt to try to cheat the Committee on a subsequent vote. That is a very serious accusation to make, and I make it in all honesty. I ask whether you would report to the Committee the information which you received.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): rose—

Hon. Members: Down.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no sense in the spokesman for the Opposition, on the one hand, making a point of order and other hon. Members, on the other hand, trying to usurp the duties of the Chair.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. My view is that, if there was improper delay in the Lobbies, that would be a most reprehensible matter. I therefore hope that you will consider the representations put to you. I am not sure whether the best course would be to report to the Committee now or at some later stage. But I would not condone, nor, I believe, would the Committee, any use of the Lobbies for preventing subsequent votes.
Although this is not on a point of order, may I also say, with regard to the votes that have taken place, that the Government's view is that the decisions of the Committee are most unwise? We shall seek the normal ways of presenting these matters to the House again, just as we are entitled to do according to the normal procedures.
I do not retract from what I have said in response to the point of order, and I believe that the whole House would wish to see that matter disposed of quite separately.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no use in prolonging this matter. As hon. Members know, I have given careful consideration to what action the Chair could take in the circumstances reported to me. I asked the Serjeant at Arms to make certain inquiries, which he did, and he reported to me. I took what I considered to be appropriate action. The practice and duties of the House and the

Chair were not in any way hindered, and the business of the Committee proceeded as the House wished it to proceed. That is all I have to say.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir Myer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Chairman is no longer in the Chair.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know about you, I do not know about the rest of the House, but I am getting worried about the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) as Leader of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I hope all other hon. Members appreciate, that I, acting now as Mr. Deputy Speaker, am not going to take any points of order dealing with when the House was in Committee.

EMPLOYMENT (CORNWALL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

11.32 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: After what must be the most effective speech in this House by a Liberal Member for many years, I hope that my contribution, which will be somewhat longer, will have the same effect on the problem that I wish to raise for my constituents.
The question I wish to raise is unemployment in Cornwall. Cornwall, contrary to the image very often displayed in the newspapers, is the part of this great world where the Industrial Revolution started. Engineering developments there such as the beam engine were very much the start of the Industrial Revolution.
The trouble is that Cornwall is also the first place where the Industrial Revolution ended. It has more industrial wasteland than any other county in the United Kingdom. It has suffered from


unemployment for a long time. I have sat here many times listening ironically to other hon. Members complaining about 6 per cent. unemployment in their areas, for we have long regarded 6 per cent. as a problem solved. Cornwall's unemployment is 12·5 per cent. It is 14·7 per cent. for men. There are 16,840 men and women registered as unemployed in an area as small as Cornwall.
Cornwall has the highest rate of unemployment of any county in Great Britain. There are only two special development areas that can boast, if that is the right word, of a greater percentage, and they are North-West Wales and Girvan. In a recent parliamentary Question. I asked the appropriate Minister to list the 20 employment exchanges in the United Kingdom with the highest level of unemployment. It gives me no pleasure to tell the House that Cornwall had six of those exchanges and England had just four. This is a tremendous problem.
Let me give some of the figures applying to Cornwall. The figure of unemployment in St. Ives is 20 per cent., in Helston 20 per cent., Newquay 15 per cent., Camelford 15 per cent., Penzance 14 per cent.. Falmouth 14 per cent. and Wadebridge 13½ per cent. In my constituency, which by Cornish standards is a bright spot in employment terms, there are 1,607 unemployed in the city of Truro and 1,680 unemployed in St. Austell Town. Even in the summer, unemployment in Cornwall is higher than in many special development areas. Statistics which I have seen show that many of the unemployed have been in that situation for more than six months. It is a well-known fact that many of the women who have been unemployed have given up the struggle to obtain employment. Therefore, the figures show the situation in a better light than it actually is.
It was a Labour Government who in the 1960s introduced development area status. This move was much appreciated in my county. Since that time, the situation has been steadily eroded. More special development areas and intermediate areas have been created and there has been a relaxation in the controls in the more prosperous areas. There has been a change of emphasis which has moved help away from the regions in

order to give help to particular industries. In that group are Chrysler, British Leyland and British Steel, all of which have received massive amounts of Government money but not all of which are in development areas.
In addition, we have lost the regional employment premium. This has been a dire loss in Cornwall since it is an area where many jobs are labour-intensive. Furthermore, we have also lost regional development grants for mining. I do not see any logical reason for this loss. Meanwhile, the present approach to Cornwall's problems hardly gives any great optimism for the future. There is a good deal of anger in the area at the fact that 12 fishing boats from the Eastern bloc are taking 600 tons a day of mackerel from the Scottish and North of England purse seiners. Those boats have fished out their own waters and have come to Cornwall to fish out ours. There is no doubt that, if controls are not put on the situation soon, the Cornish fishing industry will go down the pan.
We in Cornwall continue to suffer from job centralisation. There has been a centralisation of brain but a decentralisation of brawn. The vehicle licensing operations are now at Swansea, the South Western Water Authority is situated in Exeter, the South Western Economic Planning Group is at Bristol and our road system is planned from Exeter. The Department of Industry operates from Plymouth, Cardiff and Bristol—it is difficult to follow what goes on in those three cities—but none is based in Cornwall. There is now a threat that the Post Office's mechanised sorting operations will mean that further jobs will be stolen from Cornwall as all detailed sorting of mail will be done in Plymouth. The stealing of jobs from Cornwall by other parts of the country is not acceptable.
I suspect that the reason why we have not attracted much attention in the House is that we have not had the massive bankruptcies that hon. Members are used to. That is hardly surprising since there are only 18 companies in Cornwall which employ more than 500 people. We have a small-firm economy. These figures exclude agriculture, but 52 per cent. of those working in industries in Cornwall work for firms employing fewer than 50 people. The figure for Great Britain is 33 per cent.
Of the various schemes operating in some parts of the country, the small firms employment subsidy could do more for Cornwall than any other. It gives £20 a week for six months for every new job created. It is tailor-made for an economy such as that in Cornwall and could do a great deal of good. Will the Minister consider including agriculture within the scope of the subsidy? I do not see why agriculture and industry should be treated differently. The manufacturing of car wheels and the growing of turnips are both adding value to a basic entity.
The construction industry has been one of the backbones of employment in Cornwall. In 1973, it reached ludicrous levels. If construction had been maintained at that year's level of activity, the whole of Cornwall would eventually be a concrete jungle. Those who manufactured the great building boom of 1973 have much to answer for. It attracted numerous people to Cornwall, and they came under the illusion that there would always be full-time employment for them—when, obviously, there would not.
It is incredible that we can write to Ministers and put down Questions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) did recently, asking how much of the £400 million voted to the construction industry will be coming to Cornwall and get no answer. Apparently, Ministers have no idea and they shown no great interest. The Government can produce figures for Scotland. The mechanism ought to exist to enable them to produce figures for Cornwall. We should like to know how much of the £400 million will be coming to us.
The National Enterprise Board exists in every development area except Cornwall. Every other development area has its own board or a regional office. Cornwall does not even have an office in Plymouth—which is where such offices are usually located. Why is that?
Probably the greatest reflection of our unemployment problem is the low wage structure. Wages in private industry are at least £15 a week below the national average, and until the employment problem is put right it is unlikely that any real effective action can be taken on the low wage problem. I recognise the background of economic difficulties that the country has faced in the past 12 or 18 months, and I am proud that some of the efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends

may have helped towards the upturn that we are now seeing. There is spare money around, and now is the time to put it into unemployment areas such as Cornwall.
We should like special development area status, and if we cannot get that we should like at least the small firms employment subsidy. I also urge the Minister to consider extending that scheme to agriculture. One further attraction of special development area status is that many firms in Cornwall would qualify for grants, because standards of size are lower. They do not qualify while the county has only development area status. I have explained already how much Cornwall depends on these small companies for employment.
We would like the advance factory procedure simplified. I must admit that at times I would not mind if someone explained it to me. But certainly we would like it simplified. It takes far too long. The local people in Cornwall feel that they are discriminated against, and I have pursued one or two cases on their behalf.
The real question is why there is no industry department in Cornwall. If the Plymouth office is set up mainly to service the development area in Cornwall, why is not it in the county?
The job release scheme could be improved greatly if a larger sum could be offered to those who wish to retire early. But will it be renewed, and what will be the effects of this in Cornwall? I know that it has been of some use.
Real action is required to help fishing. I cannot emphasise too much that, unless early and dramatic action is taken, there will be no mackerel fishing in Cornwall, and we shall have two and three-year bans on mackerel-fishing, as exist in Scotland for herring, and those engaged in it in the county will be crushed and put out of business.
We ought to have more information about the construction industry.
I put those five factors to the Minister, but most of all I wish to put to him the social problem. I am very much a born Cornishman, as hon. Members will have guessed. The problem is severe. When a young man comes into my surgery, as often happens, asking me for advice on the career that he should pursue, it gives me no pleasure to have to tell him, as one


Cornishman to another, "Young man, if you want a career, you had better go to England". For a short while it was not necessary to say that, but the problem is now back with a vengeance. Our youngsters are making good use of the various schemes which are available, but there is not the sort of training and permanence of employment which many of us desire to give them.
I have met hundreds of men who have reached the age of 50 and who have given up all hope of being employed. Twelve months of effort seems to have convinced them that at the age of 50 they are beyond any useful occupation. That is not satisfactory.
In Cornwall I have criticised the county council often enough, and no doubt when I am in Cornwall I shall continue to do so. After all, that is the best place to do it. But it is improving, and I take some credit for the fact that my nagging has caused that improvement. I am hoping tonight that my nagging in this debate may cause some improvement in this House. Can the Minister look forward to greater help for Cornwall? Does he recognise how serious the problem is in Cornwall? Can he assure us that some of the schemes that I have outlined will receive urgent attention? I believe that they are the minimum required to save Cornwall from reaching the 15 per cent. unemployment level that I have been predicting year after year.

11.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has rightly spoken with passion about the problem of unemployment in Cornwall, and I begin by giving him the assurance that we recognise the problem and that we shall take notice of what he said about the extension of schemes to see whether we can help towards its solution.
The Government share the hon. Gentleman's concern. The figures are frightening. In Cornwall as a whole, in January there was an unemployment rate of 12·5 per cent. and, as the hon. Member says, the male unemployment rate was 14·7 per cent. Even at the height of the summer season, in August, the figures were 10 per cent. and for males 12·4 per cent. and the figures for youth unemployment are also very bad. This month, there were

still 2,478 young people unemployed in Cornwall, 374 of them school leavers.
Cornwall is suffering from the present world recession, but the recession, however harmful, cannot be the only explanation of the very high figures. Nor is the unemployment entirely seasonal, although this factor is important, otherwise the figures for August would not be so high. A 10 per cent. level of unemployment in August cannot he dismissed as being due to the recession or seasonal factors. The Government have no intention of so dismissing it.
Nor—although it is a small factor—can we claim that a major cause of the problem is that occupational pensioners are going to live in Cornwall and registering as unemployed. It could be that many of the unemployed are much younger people who have travelled to Cornwall in search of work and have preferred to be unemployed there than elsewhere. Certainly no one can blame them if that is true, although the Department has no evidence to prove or disprove it. In any case, if it were true, there is nothing we could do about it, because people must be free to live and work where they wish. What we must try to achieve is jobs for Cornish people, particularly the youngsters who wish to work in Cornwall.
In my maiden speech I expressed concern that the bright young people of North Staffordshire had to leave their home area to find suitable careers, so I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's demand for Cornish people the right to obtain good jobs with good pay and prospects in their own locality.
I also understand the strength with which the hon. Gentleman defends Cornwall against Whitehall, and I shall try to respond tonight with all the understanding that a provincial Member can bring, although I must say that every locality I visit believes itself to be the most neglected. That includes parts of London which themselves face enormous problems.
We do want the young and adults of Cornwall to have regular jobs and I shall try to help in the creation of those jobs. In the meantime, we want Cornwall to keep taking advantage of the Government's special measures. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the job release scheme, although I had hoped that even more advantage would have been taken of it than has been taken so


far. I appreciate the argument that can be advanced about the level of the payment. Nearly 8,000 people in Cornwall have benefited from the Government's special measures so far, but there is still scope for much greater effort on the part of employers, particularly as regards the schemes for young people.
I very much enjoyed visiting Truro Garages with the hon. Gentleman last year to see its successful work experience scheme, which has helped a number of young people. I was particularly glad to hear that four of the youngsters concerned have since been offered permanent jobs by the company.
On the same visit we saw the Probus village hall job creation project. I am delighted that the hall has now been completed. The Government are ready to provide money for projects of this kind in Cornwall. I hope that employers, trade unions and local groups will continue to support these schemes, which help both young people and the locality.
We have done much in the past year for which the hon. Gentleman pressed in the debate on employment in the South-West last February. We have reduced tax on the lower paid. Changes in personal tax allowances last April removed 2.1 million lower earners from tax altogether.
On the question of employment, I am delighted to report that the prospects for china clay in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are good, particularly in the long term.
Tonight the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of grants to tin mining. I understand the importance of this industry to Cornwall, but I believe that, if prices and the ore content hold up, prospects are good. We cannot give subsidies, which are the taxpayers' money, to firms which do not need them. The hon. Gentleman would need to present a very strong case on employment grounds for the subsidy that he claims. I say in passing that the regional employment premium was scrapped because it was thought by industry itself not to be giving value for money in terms of jobs. This we must try to do. As an aside, may I say that regional employment subsidy was not defended until after it had been abolished? Beforehand it was continually attacked and criticised. No one defended it.

Mr. John Pardoe: I hope that the Minister will not spread that remark over the whole of the forces in this House. The Liberal Party has long advocated this form of subsidy to labour-intensive industries, and we stoutly defended it. We were appalled when the Government, who fought the last General Election on the basis of keeping the subsidy—opposing the Conservative policy of scrapping it—reversed their decision.

Mr. Golding: The voices raised in support of REP were not very loud. Those of us who had defended it thought that there was general criticism. It is not the case that we are not prepared to give assistance to Cornwall. That is why the bulk of the county was given development area status. This made it possible for the Government to announce the building of 11 advance factories which will provide 320 new jobs when they are fully operational.
I shall pass on to the Department of Industry the criticisms made by the hon. Member about procedure. Our policy has enabled us to give financial assistance totalling £46 million to the South-West assisted area since 1972. It is not true, therefore, that the money always goes elsewhere. Some £3.2 million of the £46 million was regional selective financial assistance which has provided about 3,200 additional jobs and safeguarded a further 500.
The Department of Industry advertises extensively in the national Press concerning the availability of Government incentives for firms wishing to move to or expand in the assisted areas. The advertising covers the availability of advance factories, and in 1977 there was a good response from firms interested in the South-West assisted area. In Cornwall in the past five years the average period that advance factories have remained vacant between completion and allocation has been about 12 months. That is not a bad record.
I know that the hon. Member wishes the Government to go further and grant special development status to the area. This is a matter for the Department of Industry. and I know that the Minister of State is receiving a deputation on 16th February to discuss this question. I do

1565-66
not hold out any hope that that status will be granted.
One important question raised by the hon. Member referred to the small firms employment subsidy. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the case that has been put tonight. At present, my right hon. Friend is reviewing the scheme. I am sure that he will take account of tonight's debate. Although I am not sure that there can be an extension of assistance to agriculture, I can say that there is certainly a realisation that small firms are important to Cornwall. The hon. Member knows that the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the Member for Keighley Mr. Cryer, are devoting much energy to this cause.
Let me cite a few things that have been done in the past year, since the time of the last debate on the South-West. There have been a number of tax concessions in favour of small firms, including relief from capital gains tax. The rate of interest on loans from the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas has been reduced. The Small Firms Counselling Service has been extended. I understand. indeed, that that scheme began in the South-West because of the importance of small firms in that area—from which it will be seen that the South-West is not left out of consideration. In addition, there are now loans available for 50 per cent. of initial overhead costs to help exporters develop overseas markets.
In Cornwall, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and the Development Commission have been active. That is because we realise the great importance of tackling rural unemployment. I have discovered on travelling around the country what a great problem rural unemployment is, especially for young people living in villages and small towns. The Development Commission plans to build 39 advance factories in Cornwall, and these are expected to provide about 370 additional jobs. Loans by the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas for tourism in the first nine months of the
1567-68
financial year had already reached £277,000 compared with £220,000 for the whole of 1976–77. Its loans to small industries have increased sharply from £25,000 in 1976–77 to £103,000 in the first nine months of this year.
The hon. Gentleman is interested in the export of fine pottery. Of course, I have always claimed that the finest pottery is made in North Staffordshire. However, I understand that the British Overseas Trade Board is in touch with the Cornwall Development Association about its plans to set up an export co-operative along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested in the debate last year. The BOTB has offered to assist the cooperative with its marketing plans.
I have talked so far about the development of industry and rural crafts, but tourism has still to provide needed jobs and incomes to Cornwall. We have as a Government made a great effort to help Cornwall in this respect. The area from Bude to Wadebridge in North Cornwall is one of the three districts chosen for a pilot scheme to promote the tourist industry by developing high-quality accommodation, by providing activity centres and by introducing more effective promotional marketing.
This will be the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have ever heard me finish on time in an Adjournment debate. I shall have no time to talk about fishing or agriculture, but perhaps when I visit Cornwall later in the year I shall get a chance to talk about those subjects. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to all that has been said about fishing and agriculture.
Tonight I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to express my concern at Cornwall's plight, and I do so sincerely. There is a terrible problem in Cornwall, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are anxious to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.